SBNation.com User Blog: dcrockett17

2013 NFL Draft Results: Quickie take on Day Three

dcrockett17 — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:38:45 -0000

With far too many players to go through individually, I will just offer a few organizing thoughts on this draft and this off-season as more or less informed speculation.

1. Offensively, this team remains committed to ball control and explosive plays. It is not trying to turn Russell Wilson into Drew Brees.

It is telling that the two major additions at receiver, Harvin and 4th round pick Chris Harper, both came from very run-heavy offenses. I am increasingly convinced that this is an independent factor in evaluation. That is, can this guy function in an offense where he has to block and is not necessarily going to see a ton of balls thrown at him?

At the same time, the team clearly favors athleticism relative to technical proficiency. (To be clear, it is always a ratio. This team is more tolerant of a rawer prospect that meets certain athleticism requirements than, say, Holmgren, who erred on the side of skill.) This front office values slugging percentage a bit more than on base percentage, if I might be permitted a baseball analogy.

It is also telling that the front office evidently values continuity on the offensive line, passing on a good bit of offensive line talent until late in the draft.

2. Defensively, this team remains committed to "running a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel" and wants to be able to mix and match in the front seven.

After the run defense so very clearly wore down late last season, I wondered how it might be addressed. Seattle remains committed to its core approach, not surprisingly. With plans to use Jesse Williams at the "Alan Branch" big three technique rather than full-time as Red Bryant's caddy at the five technique, the team is clearly committed to run defense first in the base front four.

Still, it is quite likely that Seattle will look to strengthen its pass rush through various sub-packages more so than in its base defense. Jordan Hill should strengthen Seattle's rotation at both the three- and one-technique.

3. Seattle is serious about creating field position through special teams. The Seahawks are at least a 9 on the 10-point Erickson-Schottenheimer scale.

Chris Harper, Luke Willson, and Spencer Ware, I anticipate, will make the roster, though it is hardly set in stone for any of them. Assuming they do, their primary contributions are likely to be on special teams. The same seems true for Christine Michael, but he seems likely to have a bigger role in the offense. I see Harper specifically as a higher upside replacement for Obomanu as a gunner. (Consider that Byron Maxwell is frequently injured and Jeron Johnson is no lock for the roster.)

Regardless, the coverage and return units should be fierce. With Harvin on kickoffs and talk of Tate returning punts, Seattle is looking to create short fields for itself while forcing opponents to drive the length. (No one was perhaps more contemptuous of lengthening the field for opponents than Dennis Erickson. That is why he anchors the low end of the scale. Perhaps the only coach in recent memory more special teams-focused than Pete Carroll was Marty Schottenheimer.)

4. This draft was mostly for replication and replenishment.

An age old draft dilemma is the one about talent, need, and fit. It is often falsely dichotomized to talent vs. need. What you draft for depends on what stage of life a roster is in. Seattle should be drafting to replicate itself, and not necessarily to incorporate new, incommensurate talent.

This team has already been through that stage when it drafted Golden Tate and Richard Sherman, traded for Chris Clemons, and signed Alan Branch. Now, we are seeing if we can win a title with this approach and these players. This draft, and hopefully the next several, is about reproducing or replicating the roles that make this approach work, and adding fresh (and... ahem... inexpensive) players to fill those roles.

2013 NFL Draft Results: Quick takes on NFC West Drafts through Round 3

dcrockett17 — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:09:40 -0000

This division just gets tougher and tougher

Arizona's Key Additions: Jonathan Cooper (7th overall), Kevin Minter (45), Tyrann Mathieu (69):

The Cardinals have the monumental task of rebuilding while the other teams in the division are still ascending or at their peak. Given that, it's hard not to appreciate what they've done through the first three rounds. Not jaw-dropping stuff, but their picks have been weirdly placed right where talent drops off. Cooper wasn't an inspired pick, but he's among the best of the second tier of high first round talent (not elite, but very, very good).

So he's probably the right pick given the way the draft flowed. He should be a very good interior player with consistent Pro Bowler potential. In the second they traded back for Minter, which was the pick that started that really weird run in the 2nd round on players who had projections all over the place. Minter seems like a perfectly serviceable LB, and I saw first round projections. But, I wonder if the Cards won't look back and regret passing on Arthur Brown. Identical height/weight but Brown looked the better player to me.

As for Mathieu, I thought the Cards might continue overhauling the offensive line but they opt for the defensive playmaker instead. I've never been as high on Mathieu as some. However, the Cardinals should know more about him than anyone because they have a personal connection. (Evidently, he dated the step-daughter of an assistant coach.) In fact, I wonder if the Cards gave him a guarantee and requested he stop meeting with other teams.

San Francisco's Key Additions: Eric Reid (18), Cornellius (Tank) Carradine (40), Vance McDonald (55), Corey Lemonier (88):

It's hard not to appreciate what the Niners have done so far. They had a lot of liquidity coming into the draft and they've not had a problem using it either. I might quibble with passing on Matt Elam for Eric Reid, but that's pretty minor. Their vision is clear. They needed to replace lost talent and add depth. Lemonier might be an inspired pick. Good work Niners. Bastages.

Saint Louis' Key Additions: Tavon Austin (8), Alec Ogletree (30), T.J. McDonald (71), Stedman Bailey (92):

I think if we're all honest, the guy who scares us long-term is Jeff Fisher. Saint Louis is seriously re-stocking, and if they get it turned around this might be a poor man's equivalent of the Russell Okung/Earl Thomas draft that solidifies their core. Now, before we start preparing Les Snead's bust for Canton, you can see where each of these picks has a potentially fatal flaw. Austin may be just a bit too small to be consistently effective. Ogletree may be too self-destructive. McDonald too slow. Bailey too much of a system player.

But, each one of these guys is a high upside player while none is an unreasonable gamble. Having said all that, the Rams still have BIG issues on the offensive line. It will be interesting to see if they look to address that area early in the 4th round.

Seattle's Key Additions: Christine Michael (62), Jordan Hill (87):

I thought the Michael selection was inspired, time-capsule stuff, especially after trading back into practically the 3rd round. In a draft where the team really didn't need anything, Seattle traded back practically into the third round and walked away with a high upside potential replacement for Beast Mode. This is exactly the right time in Lynch's career to implement the committee approach that both Carroll and Cable love.

By the way, I suspect they plan to keep Turbin in his current role (emphasis on the passing game), which is perfect for his skill set. Oh, and if we had any doubts about how the team values the WILLs in this draft note that they passed on Arthur Brown, Sio Moore, and Zavier Gooden.

The Jordan Hill pick is just meh. I see him as an "upper-middle class" Craig Terrill. He should be a serviceable rotational 3-technique (and occasional 1-technique) along with Greg Scruggs, Clinton McDonald and Jaye Howard. He may even be more than that by moving to the 3-technique full time after playing mostly 1-technique at Penn State. I would have preferred Stedman Bailey or another high upside receiver, but the WRs have really fallen. So, there should be big value today.

OT (sorta): What Are You Doing for Draft Night? I Hope You Will Dine Out for Life.

dcrockett17 — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:12:23 -0000

A bit of a public service announcement...

It's been a while since I have posted anything on Field Gulls. Work and family responsibilities and all that. (Not that I've been missed with all the outstanding stuff going up on this blog daily.)

One thing keeping me busy these days is serving on the Board of Directors of the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council (SCHAC) here in my adopted hometown of Columbia. Despite some exciting recent medical advances, HIV/AIDS still constitutes an enormous public health crisis in the US (.pdf). SCHAC is responding to the crisis in South Carolina by providing community-based education for HIV prevention, testing for sexually-transmitted infections, and case management for people living with HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, funding from state and federal agencies (as well as private foundations) has become increasingly scarce.

On draft night (and every 4th Thursday in April), hundreds of local AIDS service organizations will participate in Dining Out for Life. This North American fundraising event is the best kind--the kind where you don't have to write a check but still know you helped. All you have to do is show up at a participating Dining Out for Life restaurant and pay for your meal. Each restaurant will donate a percentage of the evening's proceeds to a local AIDS service organization like mine. All the money raised at the event will remain entirely in your neighborhoods, helping your family, friends, and neighbors. It's as easy as that.

To recap, you can be part of the fight against HIV/AIDS in your community in five easy steps: (1) go to DiningOutforLife.com, (2) locate your city on the map, (3) find a participating restaurant near you, (4) notify your crew where the draft party will be, then (5) go glory in Mel's hair (or yell at it if you find that more therapeutic).

So, maybe you were just gonna have a few friends over for pizza and beer. Please consider going to a Dining Out for Life restaurant for your draft night festivities instead. Seattle alone has well over 50 participating restaurants. So, there's lots to choose from. And, you'll be using your NFL draft fetish for good instead of evil.

One last thing. When you patronize a Dining Out for Life restaurant on Thursday--and I hope you do--please thank them for participating.

A bit of a public service announcement...

It's been a while since I have posted anything on Field Gulls. Work and family responsibilities and all that. (Not that I've been missed with all the outstanding stuff going up on this blog daily.)

One last thing. When you patronize a Dining Out for Life restaurant on Thursday--and I hope you do--please thank them for participating.

Two Post-Game Thoughts: Colorado State 84, Missouri 72

dcrockett17 — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:43:45 -0000

Emotionally, this reminds me so much of the tournament loss to Cincinnati. (Norfolk State was just fluky.) We got dominated, even if the scoreboard doesn't exactly say that. The game was never really in doubt. The Rams were the better, tougher team. As a fan, that's aggravating. Colorado State ran better stuff, and just couldn't miss in the first half. That leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Laurence Bowers, you will be missed. We all wish you could have played a more memorable final game. None of the seniors played especially well, apart from Alex Oriakhi. You hate to be manhandled in your final game. Sometimes those are the breaks.

1. CSU ran better stuff. This isn't Larry Eustachy's first rodeo. He had his players ready to go at the tip. Missouri, on the other hand, came out comatose. I'm a Haith fan without reservation, but he got pantsed tonight. Although CSU hit difficult shots throughout the first half their sets were even more impressive. On defense they flattened out against our screen roll and took away Flip's passing lanes. That's a big reason why AO couldn't get more touches. No space. Eustachy isn't dumb. He was going to make Phil Pressey shoot jumpers or finish in the lane, not create easy passing lanes for AO. (All things considered, Flip didn't play a bad game.)

2. Missouri should have been better defensively all season. The game wasn't an exact microcosm of the season. (It was never that close.) The big issue is that our perimeter players, apart from Keion Bell (as the season wore on) were not as committed as they should be at that end of the floor. Missouri has consistently been an under-the-screen club under Haith, in large part because guys don't always bust it over screens. That killed tonight. We fought over screens for stretches but the Rams beat us to death on ball screens that got their guards into the paint, and they all seemed to have an "old man's" mid-range pull up game using the glass. Having said that, this poor defensive performance wasn't only about inconsistent effort. Even when Missouri plays hard on defense, we don't make a lot of opponent-specific adjustments. Haith, like a lot of college coaches, emphasizes execution over doing a lot of different things. So that's not a criticism, as such. For example, Missouri doesn't really hedge on high screens with Oriakhi or Tony Criswell. There are tons of effective ways to play the screen but you have to do it well. We never did.

The point here is that I think it's fair to say, after a mildly disappointing season, that I expect to see a better defensive club in year 3 of the Haith era. Two tournament games, two layup lines is not a good look. That's not all on Haith. I've heard him complain about the defense like I'm complaining about it. But, he's the general manager; not just the coach. HCFH has to make defense a focus moving forward.

Ole Miss 64, Missouri 62: 2 Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 04:19:12 -0000

So, yet another couldah, shouldah, wouldah big second half lead turned into a loss. We are way past the point where the staff has to look at its situational strategy and do something different. I may not be a fancy, big city basketball coach but I know enough to recognize that we can no longer ignore the data.

1. This team plays differently with a lead. For all the things that are legitimately likable, even impressive, about HCFH, his seemingly slavish devotion to playing agonizingly slow with a big lead is perhaps -- no, is absolutely -- his coaching blind spot. I'm not sure if this comes from his Rick Barnes roots (another master of turning big leads into losses), but I would implore Haith to reassess things.

I am singling out the coach -- not "the team", not "Phil Pressey" -- for this criticism. Coach Haith asks his team to play at a snail's pace with a big lead when it is overall a decidedly mid-tempo team. Almost all coaches slow things down to some extent, but with Haith this year you could get whiplash he slams on the brakes so furiously. I realize he's resting players, especially Pressey. I'm not suggesting that Missouri should be playing at a "Fastest 40" Andersonian pace. Rather, I'm saying Haith's devotion to bleeding clock takes Missouri out of what it does best. Missouri is best at mixing things up. This team doesn't do any one thing expertly, except rebound. It's reasonably good at a wide assortment of different things though. A post up here, a well-designed look for three there, some screen roll, and the occasional push for an easy bucket. When Haith slows things down with a lead, he's asking the team to be expert at one thing: halfcourt execution. That has not worked well. Shockingly, for the 800th time this season stall ball did not serve the team well.

At about 10 minutes to go we went to all high screen rolls and bled the clock, more the latter than the former. And, it choked the life right out of the offense. We purposely stopped pushing the ball up to get shots before Ole Miss could set up its defense. Not necessarily a fast break, but the kind of offense where Alex Oriakhi can catch the ball on the move. It's not the only reason we lost, but it's hard to imagine we could not have gotten one more easy basket by pushing the tempo a bit when Ole Miss was staggered.

2. Playing slow is not the same as playing efficiently, coach. "Slow down a turnover-prone team to make sure you get a good shot" seems like one of those coaching idioms that is impervious to observation. It is one that I accepted for a long time, cutting my college hoops teeth as I did on John Chaney's Temple Owls. "Speed kills" was his motto. But speed doesn't kill. Stagnation kills. Offensive problems are less about playing fast or slow, and more about not moving and making the defense move. Really good offenses, regardless of tempo, make the defense move. They bend it. They overload it. They flex it. They force five defenders to constantly change perspective and position. So-called slow teams that are good offensively often run a defense to death across the width of the court, even if they're not taking a ton of shots. Bleeding clock only does one thing for certain: cut down the number of possessions for the offensive team. If you make it easy for the defense to get stops then push the ball down the floor you haven't done yourself any favors.

Mizzou 63, Florida 60: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:16:31 -0000

I'll just get right to it. Oh, and I can't WAIT to see Study Hall.

1. Missouri is a bit of a jack of all trades. Missouri is not a pure screen roll team, even though it starts a lot of sets with a high screen. It's hardly a running team, ranking only 74th in tempo. Though it may be at its best in the open floor. Missouri is also not a classic post-up/spot-up team, even though Bowers and Oriakhi can score back-to-the-basket and pass out of double teams. So what is Missouri? Missouri is one of the few teams that brings something to the table in each of those categories. Not many have that kind of versatility. It's a bit ironic that Missouri would take on this sort of Swiss Army knife identity given that it is a roster full of transfers who haven't played together long. I'd expect a Swiss Army knife team to develop over multiple seasons, not within one season.

Now, we have seen this jack of all trades team spend a good portion of the season as "master of none", especially in end-of-game situations. We saw that to some degree last night and in Fayetteville (officiating notwithstanding). When Missouri tries to close out games it struggles with purpose. So it is hardly surprising that the execution often leaves something to be desired. But, I saw real growth last night. I saw a couple things that bode well for this team's chances to reach its considerable potential. One is relatively consistent defensive effort. Florida lives on easy buckets stemming from momentary lapses in concentration and intensity that lead to cheap open looks. Missouri gave some of those looks up, which of course made HCFH's jacket come off. But the Gators still only shot 50.6% TS. So the Tigers forced some very, very difficult shots and limited Patrick Young on the boards. In fact, Florida's last two baskets--Wilbekin's step back three and Rosario's off-the-bounce, across-the-lane fadeaway--were exceptionally difficult makes. Additionally, over the last eight minutes or so of each half Missouri got much better looks out of its sets than did Florida. In fact, Missouri missed a bunch tips-ins and wide open jump shots but consistently got high-quality looks against one of the best defenses in the country. Does this mean Missouri has fixed everything and is now a sure bet to win the SEC? Hardly. After some tough luck losses in single possession games the win itself may be nothing more than a kind random bounce. (After all, Florida had a pretty good look at the end of the game.) But win or lose, I saw this team take concrete steps last night on its journey to fulfill its substantial potential.

2. Some teams just should not try to bleed the clock at the ends of games. Coach Haith. You knew more about basketball on your first day as a graduate assistant than I ever have or will. So, I get it. I really do. Letting the air out of the ball can be the smart play. But I will go to my grave agreeing with the late Jim Valvano. "In the last four minutes of a game that is clocked you win on offense--not defense." You can't give the order from the bench to dribble away late game possessions when you have five guys on the floor perfectly capable of giving them away without any suggestion from you. This is not a team that can take its end-of-game execution for granted. So please. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Keep the pressure on the opposing defense rather than putting it on your own. Just run your stuff.

Bonus Thought: Alex Oriakhi was a quiet hero last night. His box score contributions will not be impressive, but Oriakhi played Patric Young to a draw. That was exactly what Missouri needed. Young can dominate a game on the boards and by shutting down the lane. Oriakhi didn't allow that to happen. To his credit, he's shown more offense at Missouri than he was allowed to show at UConn but his offense is destined to come and go. He doesn't have a face-up game and his hands are only adequate at best. (He fumbles good entry passes and is frequently stripped.) So he struggles without an overwhelming physical advantage. For this team to get where it wants to go it can live with inconsistent offense from Oriakhi, but it needs him to be a consistent physical presence on the boards and at the rim. He has largely been that, but last night he was great. He simply kept Young from being a factor.

LSU 73 Mizzou 70: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:08:34 -0000

So, that was disappointing. On the road against a poor shooting team that is hitting bad shots you cannot compound it with silly fouls on jump shooters. You always regret it late in the game when they've inevitably cooled down. The road has a way of making you play through some adversity. Mizzou has not been especially good at it to this point.

Still...

1. This team can take a punch. We like to use boxing analogies in the game threads. To take the metaphor perhaps a step too far, Mizzou's most under-appreciated (and most frustrating) quality is its ability to take the other's team power punch and get back up. As miserable as this team can make its coach (not to mention its fans), it's like an NBA team in that it (pretty much) always makes a run.

On the other hand...

2. This team has intensity issues. I don't usually go in for arm-chair psychology, but most of us already recognize the hole in the roster (i.e., secondary ball handlers) and the issues with floor spacing that come from having so many new players. So I may as well talk about something else. This team has no DeMarre Carroll or J.T. Tiller-type emotional leader on the floor. (Oriakhi is intense but I wouldn't describe him as a leader.) The overwhelming personality of this group is laid back, almost Big Lebowski laid back. What what we are seeing from HC Frank Haith is that he has to supply the emotional intensity more often than he probably cares to. Frank Haith isn't Frank Martin. He's not a natural screamer. To be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting that this group lacks a desire to compete and win. Rather, I'm saying that most of these guys are on the Kareem Rush end of the emotional intensity scale--not the DeMarre Carroll end. That's not a critique; just a description. I'm a laid back guy myself. However, a low level of emotional intensity can easily morph into passive play. Emotional intensity isn't the sort of thing that makes you play well, or hit shots you don't normally hit. But, it can be the difference in securing a loose ball, a rebound, or in challenging a shot. Think that might have mattered tonight? In that sense, I thought the team really missed Keion Bell. He is one of the only defenders who can create easy baskets off his defense at all. He also plays at a consistently high level of emotional intensity.

This is a difficult loss, but nothing that can't be overcome.

I remember watching the Mike Bibby-led '97 Arizona Wildcats title team finish .500 in a meh Pac-10 and then go through four #1 seeds and multiple OT games to a national title. I'm not comparing Mizzou's talent, but the emotional makeup of the two groups is similar. That group of Wildcats was pretty laid back, but they could take a punch. They struggled with many of the same kinds of issues that challenge Mizzou--lots of new players trying to figure out spacing and shots and low emotional intensity. Turns out, you can't make guys have a different emotional makeup. What you can do is allow them play through adversity. It's not the answer any of us probably wants, but it's pretty much the only one.

The Seahawks, the Super Bowl, & the panic-free off-season

dcrockett17 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:16:57 -0000

So, the Super Bowl is set. It's Harbaugh vs. Harbaugh in battle to determine, once and for all, which brother becomes like the tortured-but-lovable Jeff Van Gundy versus the bitter, humorless Stan.

I cannot imagine that even Russell Wilson, much less any Field Gulls regular, sat through Championship weekend without wondering what might have been. Even if but for a wee moment. As many of the regular writers here have already pointed out, the Seahawks are every bit as good as any of the teams that played on Sunday.

This isn't meant to be a couldah-shouldah-wouldah post. Nor is it meant to be a 'look how bright the future is!" post. This is more of a look at the competition to plan the off-season post. I suspect that most reasonable observers would list the best teams in the NFL right now, and going forward, as (in alphabetical order): Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Green Bay, New England, Seattle, and San Francisco. This is throwing everything into the pot, including current performance, roster construction, cap space, draft position, coaching, management/ownership, divisional/conference competition, etc. I can see adding a team or two to this list, but I don't see who could get tossed off.

That's the competition. That's the list of teams against which progress should be judged, and around which off-season plans should be made.

So, what are Seattle's off-season needs? Rather than think about needs by position I want to think about them by function.

1. Internal improvement/maturation. By far, the most important "need" to be filled this off-season is for current contributors to get better. One great thing about this team is that it's young enough to expect substantial improvement (especially in terms of consistency) from many if not most key contributors in 2013. But, that won't happen just because. "Building through the draft" requires much more than scouting for hidden gems. It requires that off-season player development be at the heart of the program. Remember how many of us were calling for Brandon Browner's head because he was a walking pass interference flag in 2011? Of course you don't. Neither do I. Now let us never speak of it again, except to say that he came into 2012 a much better CB than he left 2011.

Think about that this off-season when you are reading mock drafts that have Seattle committing high picks in consecutive drafts to a single position. Think about it when you read complaints that Seattle doubled down on Bevell without seriously considering more accomplished (and available) football minds from "outside the program" (e.g., Lovie Smith, Rod Marinelli, Norv Turner) to replace the coordinators. Developing players is more effectively done by a relatively stable coaching staff with intimate knowledge of the roster. New defensive coordinator Dan Quinn provides more stability and greater familiarity than any other external candidate could. That is a shrewd (if obvious) hire by Carroll, as few things stunt young players' improvement/maturation like coaching instability and/or injury. Seattle has been relatively fortunate on both counts.

2. Addressing the pass rush without overreacting. Since Pete Carroll has declared the pass rush an off-season priority there is little arguing the point. Seattle will look to improve it. However, a little context is key.

Table 1: NFL Pass Defense Rankings (by Real Yards Per Attempt)

CHFF Rank	Team	Defensive Pass Attempts	Pass Yards	QB Sacks	Sack Yards Lost	Defensive Real Yards Per Attempt
1	Denver*	559	3558	52	364	5.23
2	Pittsburgh	523	3159	37	196	5.29
3	San Francisco	567	3473	38	270	5.29
4	Seattle	564	3497	37	254	5.40
5	Chicago	592	3712	41	289	5.41
6	Cincinnati*	560	3763	50	361	5.58
7	Green Bay*	568	3801	47	309	5.68
8	Houston*	581	3881	44	269	5.78
9	N.Y. Jets	494	3206	30	170	5.79
10	Minnesota	612	4192	44	284	5.96

Table 1 lists NFL pass defenses by Cold Hard Football Facts' "Real" yards per attempt allowed. The "Real" adjustment uses net passing yards (i.e., gross passing yards minus sack yards), which rewards defenses for sack yardage. The four defenses with asterisks ALSO rank in the top ten for sack rate (per Football Outsiders). You might expect the sack rate leaders to also be the Real YPA leaders. Not so. Overlap, yes. But, I see a wide array of approaches to pass defense (and overall defense) on this list, both in terms of schema and personnel. Some emphasize sacks while other emphasize preventing explosive plays in coverage. The table strongly suggests--to me anyway--that there are many roads that lead to the mountain.

Seattle's defense needs an improved pass rush to fully deliver on its promise, but it doesn't need league-leading sack rates to be effective in any fundamental way. There's a difference. Put another way, for all the talk of pass rush woes, just four additional sacks would've given Seattle a top ten sack rate. So, I don't expect PC/JS to panic. Given what we know of them, they'll likely address the pass rush by: (a) prepping Irvin, Scruggs, and Howard to (partially) offset inevitable decline from the veterans, and (b) making a shrewd but low-key move on the interior. A big-name edge rusher seems unlikely for PC/JS UNLESS they can find one at substantially below market rates to play a reduced role (e.g., Osi Umenyiora). But don't be surprised if they target more big interior bodies to effectively push the pocket to create space for Messrs. Irvin, Clemons, Scruggs, et al. while bolstering the run defense.

3. Settling the offensive interior. This is likely the X factor in whether the offense fulfills its potential, as the interior is probably the most underperforming sub-unit. The interior had challenges in pass protection, with communication and assignment integrity emerging as major problems against St. Louis and in both playoff games. I wonder if long-term Carroll sees both J.R. Sweezy and John Moffit as quality backups. Hence his inability to settle on one player for a lion's share of reps.

Carroll and Cable clearly like Carpenter at LG and would like someone between McQuistan, Moffitt, and Sweezy to step up and claim RG. Having said that, I doubt the team brings in starter competition on the interior. At some point you have to settle on five and let them grow together. But, it also wouldn't surprise me to see the position thinned out a bit this off-season.

4. Settling on a long-term plan at WLB. The two positions I'll address directly are WLB and WR/TE. As positions go, WLB might be the biggest donut hole on the roster. It's the one position where virtually any move from PC/JS is plausible. You could see them search for a starter or for depth in the draft or in the market. Or, they could do both; drafting a player like Missouri's Zavier Gooden in the middle rounds to compete and adding a free agent like DeAndre Levy at the right price.

5. Finding a "playmaker" at WR/TE. Contrary to some, I am more than fine with Sidney Rice and Golden Tate as the top two WRs. In my estimation the team has far greater need of depth than a top-end player. Still, I can definitely see Seattle committing to finding a receiver that wins battles at the line of scrimmage and is dynamic with the ball. I still believe in Doug Baldwin, but this was a bit of a lost season for him based on health.

Missouri 79, Georgia 62: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:53:54 -0000

It has been a bit since I saw Mizzou play. UCLA to be exact.

Georgia is not good, and really they haven't been good for a prolonged period during the Mark Fox era. At home, I needed to see the team handle business and the non-Pressey players bring something to the table. Alex Oriakhi had a quietly awesome game, despite getting no dap from the official for a big-time rebound late in the game. It's not just what he did. It's what he didn't do. No really stupid fouls or other negative plays. Stefan Jankovic and Tony Criswell appeared to bring more energy than productivity, but the effort was there. With that kind of effort better productivity should follow. Keion Bell, Jabari Brown, and Earnest Ross all had good games too. Well done.

1. Any time Missouri can get good ball handling from someone other than Flip it's all to the good. It was different players at different times, but both Bell and Brown spent some time setting up the half court plays. The team is still woefully dependent on Phil Pressey, but Bell and Brown took on the challenge and were decent in their decision-making and pure handle. The thought of taking on Florida fills me with dread. I just don't know if we have enough ball handlers, but over the long-term tonight's minutes where Bell and Brown ran the show times were important.

2. This offense struggles on the weak side. I've struggled to put my finger on why we see so many stretches of really poor offense (not just shooting). To truly maximize a born pick-and-roll player like Pressey, a team needs excellent play on the weak side. Ours comes and goes. That's one of the major "we're just going to have to live through this" struggles for this team. Our transfer wings (Bell, Brown, and Ross) are all learning how to play on the weak side, an underappreciated skill set. The big thing is reading the floor well enough to understand when to cut to the basket and when to spot up when Flip comes off the screen at the top. There is no formula for how to read the floor from the weak side. The Georgia game seemed to illustrate the issue. Sometimes they read it correctly. Sometimes times they don't.

Laurence Bowers is the team's best weak side player. Think of how often we see Bowers come from seemingly nowhere to create a passing angle for Flip, get a tip in, or spot up for wide open looks. So much of that has to be read on the fly. Somewhat hilariously, Criswell seems good at reading the floor on the weak side while Jankovic is dreadful. Criswell is such a poor shooter I keep wondering how he so often seems like he's doing good things. He has a good feel for getting to the right spot to get the ball. (What happens after that is another matter.) On the other hand Jankovich is not very good at reading the floor. Consequently, he is either (a) hitting a shot or (b) taking himself or the ball headlong into disaster.

Of course, this is an impression. It's not based on systematic film study. I'll leave that to others.

'You Gotta Get Your Heart Broken Before You Can Win'

dcrockett17 — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:46:33 -0000

Listen, whenever this gets posted I'm sure that most of us will still be feeling the sting of heartbreak. This was just one of those "sports are crazy" days, and we did not come out on top. Two point losses pretty much always sting, regardless of circumstances. Much less on the road in the divisional round after mounting an AMAZING comeback from deepest of deep holes to take a late lead.

Game breakdowns will likely be forthcoming from those more talented than I on the .gif-istrator. So I won't go there.

I will simply take this moment to remind us all, as sports fans...

THIS is what you signed up for.

If you ever wanted this team to be relevant in any meaningful discussion about title contention then this is the deal. You lay it out there as a fan. You bare your heart and soul, knowing that it can be broken at any moment because every team in the playoffs is capable of doing something special.

I heard my favorite sports cliche first from Doug Collins, the NBA coach and former analyst for TNT. "You gotta get your heart broken before you can win in the playoffs," he used to say. Now, suffering heartbreak before winning is a sports cliche for a reason. It's imprecise. It's impossible to verify empirically. Yet, it rings true as a morality tale. As poetry rather than as formula. To be clear, I like nothing about today's heartbreak. I don't subscribe to any Calvinist notions of redemptive suffering. But there's only two ways to walk off the field in the playoffs: exuberant or heart broken. When it's the latter, the suffering that accompanies it can either cripple a young team or strengthen its resolve and will. To come so close only to fail teaches a painful lesson. Every play counts in every game. Seattle has a gaggle of one-possession losses, where points were left on the field. Blocks were missed. The defense lapsed in its gap discipline, and that's the difference between winning and losing the division. Between getting a top seed and a bye.

Teams that have championship caliber resolve play at a high level through the bounces--both lucky and unlucky. That often determines the winners, as much as talent and scheme. One of the many things to love about this Seattle team is that it has that kind of resolve and will already on both sides of the ball, and the core is so young. But I want to highlight resolve and will at another level, from Hall of Fame-to-be Falcons TE Tony Gonzalez, who won for the first time in the playoffs in his illustrious career. In my opinion Gonzo was the difference today. Unlike Zach Miller (who was fantastic) who was wide open on most of his catches, Gonzalez made contested catches all day. He might have easily failed to bring in several balls today and it wouldn't have even been noticeable. He really only made one outstanding catch, on the TD. But, he simply was not letting the ball touch the ground today. I thought there is no way he can keep that up for four quarters. He did.

Take heart Seahawks. Take heart 12s. The future is bright but traveling the championship road hurts. You took your first step today and found that it is rocky and rough. Its incline is steep. To travel this road requires the kind of resolve and will you displayed for parts of the game, but you saw displayed by Tony Gonzalez all game.

Seahawks at Falcons: Things-I-think-I-think-style, Divisional Round edition

dcrockett17 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:23:46 -0000

The intriguing thing about this matchup is that both teams have such distinctive paths to victory.

1. Atlanta's path to victory:

On offense, Atlanta should basically be doing what Detroit did. Throw the ball quickly to every level, and run it well enough in short yardage, goal line, and to build and nurse leads. The Falcons are as capable as any team the Seahawks have faced of continuing to score. The Falcons don't let opposing offenses catch their breath. Their defense capitalizes on favorable game situations and the mistakes that result. Atlanta's run defense isn't much to shout about; not in overall DVOA or in short yardage/goal-to-go (though it is a bit better in generating zero or negative yard runs). I doubt Mike Nolan much cares.

The pass defense, by contrast, is 11th in DVOA. That ranking is VERY dependent on a ball-hawking secondary. To wit, Atlanta's Real Defensive QB Rating (per Cold Hard Football Facts) is 74.18, good for 10th overall, but they drop to 22nd in Real Defensive Yards Per Attempt (which adjusts for sack yardage). Why? Atlanta gives up a high % of completions, a good bit of real estate, and doesn't generate much sack yardage. But, the bruhs in the back get after #1 and #2 WRs and get their hands on LOTS of balls. By my count, 20 of Atlanta's 23 forced turnovers are INTs. The Falcon formula: ahead or behind, try to score and try to force turnovers. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

2. Defensively, this is Detroit all over again:

Last week, the plan was to keep Robert Griffin III in jail and force him to be patient. This week it's a return to the worst or second worst loss, week 8 at Detroit (week 1 at Arizona may have been the worst). What Seattle failed to accomplish against Matt Stafford but must accomplish against Matt Ryan is to make the pocket messy. Like Stafford, Ryan is too good to expect a big sack day without a ton of blitzes (VERY unlikely). But a messy pocket systematically reduces a QB's options.

We saw that against Dallas (where Romo had to constantly re-set). We saw it against New England (where Brady's throwing windows got tighter and tighter). We also saw it against Buffalo. None were huge sack games, but as the pocket inched closer to Romo and Brady they had had to throw where the defense wanted them to. Oddly, I think this is a matchup where Bruce Irvin can excel at the LEO. Clemons has more countermoves and uses his hands better, but Irvin may actually be better at walking the tackle back into the QB.

3. Jet lag is a real thing, and it's likely to show up as mistakes:

There is little sense crying about the early kickoff. The schedule is made to benefit the television partners. Seattle is 1-3 in 10am PDT kickoffs, with losses at St. Louis, at Detroit, at Miami, and a OT win at Chicago. The average score in those games is (with rounding) 20 - 22. I don't see any obvious patterns in the boxscores. The Seahawks have allowed no more than 7 points in any 1st quarter. So, they're not necessarily starting out sluggish.

If anything cuts across all four early kickoffs it is an inability to overcome mistakes. The fake FG in St. Louis. The blown coverage in Detroit leaves Titus Young wide open for a long score. Earl Thomas's light (but avoidable) blow to the QB's head at Miami wipes out a potentially game-saving INT. Even in the Chicago win, Richard Shermanoverruns a simple pass deflection that allows Brandon Marshall to get the Bears into FG range to force OT.

4. Even a high scoring game can be a "field position" game:

I anticipate a high scoring game, with both teams able to reach the 20s. These offenses are very good, and then add a fast playing surface to it. The Falcons have faced an easyish run of defenses. But like the 2005 Seahawks, don't let the schedule fool you. Atlanta is really good. The offense is built to pass, with little interest in running clock. And, they don't punt. They finish. How do you manage an offense like that? The first step is critical: put it in poor starting field position. Hopefully then, fewer of their big plays go directly for scores. A fifty yard bomb on first and ten from the 20 flips the field, but the defense can still win the drive with a turnover, punt, or FG attempt.

Seattle is well-equipped to make Atlanta drive long fields. The Falcons are mediocre-at-best across the board on special teams, and not especially good at creating field position on returns. They rank 10th in starting field position per drive, but much of that owes to forcing turnovers. Obviously, Seattle must also tackle well, force more punts than normal, and secure turnovers when the opportunities arise.

On the offensive side of the ball, it is worth noting that Seattle has had four "poor" offensive games based on pro-football-reference's expected points (i.e., negative expected points). Expected points shows how well a unit performed against its field position, down and distance. Seattle's last poor offensive game was at San Francisco.

That's the same number as Atlanta's offense, which is more prone to the occasional out-of-nowhere clunker. So, if you were somehow still unaware that Seattle has one of the league's best offenses, now you know. On defense Atlanta is turnover-reliant. That's not a criticism. We saw New Orleans ride that formula to a Super Bowl. Still, the Falcons defense has played nine "poor" games by expected points. (Seattle by contrast has played seven.) As I said, these two offenses are good. But not only that. They may be outright kryptonite for the two defenses involved. In cases like that field position often has the last word.

Seattle at Washington: Quickie Post-Game, Things-I-Thought-I-Thought Style

dcrockett17 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:20:10 -0000

I hope like hell you are enjoying yesterday's win. That kind of win is, in my humble opinion, the most satisfying. We saw stretches of bad, almost horrifyingly bad play, some fantastic individual efforts that stemmed the tide, and then extended periods of dominant football. The game had something for everybody -- overcoming adversity without panicking, systematically taking away a weakened opponent's options, and enough poor play that you know this team can play even better.

Start mini-sermonette: (I start on the game review in the next paragraph, so feel free to skip ahead.) I truly hope that you're not wasting your time stewing about the RGIII-Shanahan drama soaking up the post-game spotlight on ESPN and clinging to decades of disrespect, real and perceived. I suppose it's none of my business if you are but ewww. You're better than that. Don't be that fan who can't feel wholly validated unless the ESPN gasbags drive the bandwagon. Or, to quote my favorite scene from my favorite shoot-em-up, the criminally underrated Smokin' Aces:

Man! Come here! Come here. Bitches like that make me weep for what could be. If we all, sisters everywhere--black, white, brown and yellow--put our sh-- down one time, a unified front, you know the female race! Mobilize, baby! Movin' as one! You feel me?

Lesbian, black radical feminist or Seahawks fan. Whatever. Tomato. Tomato. Anyway... the point is to release the bitterness and taste the damn rainbow already. The one you have is better than the one you want. The Seahawks have the smartest, most in-depth coverage on the internet, including some truly outstanding local media talent. Even the most pro-Seahawks of the SportsCenter crew isn't saying anything you can't find here at FieldGulls.com and throughout the Seahawks blogosphere (Sando included) first. End mini-sermonette.

Onto the game. I just want to talk about a couple things connected to my preview that came up during the game to keep in mind next Sunday.

2. Seattle was built to win this game--on offense. Even if Seattle's defense is really on its game it will only limit Washington from getting its normal numbers, not shut them out. A defensive win for Seattle on Sunday is putting the ball in the offense's hands to close out the game. Ignore all the other hype.

As well as the defense played, they held serve until the offense got its collective arse in gear. I believe in the aphorism "defense wins championships" but I think that's mostly true at 30,000 feet. At the ground level, once you enter the playoffs, it's about having scoring options. Seattle, on offense, has the widest array of options among the four NFC teams. What Seattle showed yesterday is that through scheme, talent, and effort it can get big explosive plays from everyone eligible to touch the ball. As we have seen from the likes of Jeff Fisher and Jim Haslett the past two weeks, you can attack Seattle's protection schemes to some effect but you're going to give up some big plays too.

3. The first and third quarter are "coaching" quarters. The second and fourth are about execution and depth. [...] Shanny's no dummy. He will do everything possible to score early. Washington realistically has to play from out in front.

This came from two sources: Bill Connelly over at RockMNation.com, who is one of SB Nation's college football gurus, and Pat Kirwin on NFL radio. The former has made the old adage about first and third, second and fourth popular at RMN. The latter said something like this late last week (a paraphrase, but almost a direct quote): "Don't be surprised if Washington marches right down and scores on the opening drive; maybe even their first two drives. Pete Carroll will tell you that Shanahan is probably the best in the business at scripting the first couple drives, and Pete is going to play it close to the vest defensively. He's going to see how Shanahan is attacking first, even if he gets down a couple scores. Then he'll make his adjustments. The key is that Pete has guys--and he's coached this into them--guys who won't panic if they get down one or two scores." Boy, did this help keep me from losing my mind in the first quarter yesterday.

There will be a lot more to come this week. But keep these things in mind the next few days. You'll hear a lot about how big and scary Seattle is. And Seattle is. Seattle can also play chess with anyone left in this tournament.

Seahawks at Redskins: Things-I-Think-I-Think, Playoff edition

dcrockett17 — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:39:32 -0000

I believe Seattle is the better team. If that makes me a homer, so be it. Homer or not, I'm definitely not dumb. It's a difficult enough matchup and a path to a Redskin victory is obvious. It involves Robert Griffin making everyone else around him better.

1. The task facing Seattle's defense is making RGIII take the checkdown. Much easier blogged than done, certainly. Defending RGIII is about keeping him in jail, limiting his ability to create opportunities for others. RGIII first took my breath away as a freshman at Baylor, when his unknown Bears nearly defeated my ranked, Chase Daniel-led 2008-09 Mizzou Tigers in what was supposed to be a cakewalk. His ability to get to the edge and make plays from there was special then, and that was before he really developed into the kind of pocket passer he is now. He is one of a handful of NFL players who can get hot and there is nothing a defense can do. He's also in the perfect offense to curb his excesses and shield him from big negative plays.

Riding a hot RGIII is the Skins' surest path to victory. (Well, duh.) Even more than a 125 yd. day from Alfred Morris. As we saw with Teddy Bridgewater in the Sugar Bowl a few nights ago, a hot QB can make an excellent defense look downright silly.

It's a safe assumption that Griffin will come out hot. Regardless of whether he does, the key remains the same. Force RGIII to give the ball away and force the supporting cast to make the special plays on their own. Washington's WRs and TEs are solid, competent guys. They're not as good as Seattle's starters but they are deeper as a unit. If this defense is going to limit Washington, and it is as well-equipped as ANY defense in the league to do so, it must force Garcon, Hankerson, Moss, Davis, and Paulsen to catch balls facing the line of scrimmage and then to make plays in traffic. That's where big plays on defense can come from. If they beat us on tough catches and great runs, so be it.

2. Seattle was built to win this game--on offense. Even if Seattle's defense is really on its game it will only limit Washington from getting its normal numbers, not shut them out. A defensive win for Seattle on Sunday is putting the ball in the offense's hands to close out the game. Ignore all the other hype. I have yet to see any analysis suggest anything other than this about Washington's defense: it is mediocre-to-bad on pretty much every important measure. And it's alleged late-season defensive improvement is as likely as not the product of an easier schedule. (Look at the defensive yards per pass attempt and per rush in four game blocks in Hawkblogger's excellent analysis.)

3. The first and third quarter are "coaching" quarters. The second and fourth are about execution and depth. Game planning and strategy matter most early and after the half. Let's not front. You have to like Shanahan's resume over Carroll's in a playoff game. Although Carroll is not going to embarrass himself, he is more likely to get outcoached in this game. But on the flip side, short of some Arizona-style turnover-fueled mayhem, Seattle should be able to impose its will physically. A close game favors Seattle as the athletically deeper and more physical team. Shanny's no dummy. He will do everything possible to score early. Washington realistically has to play from out in front. Seattle fans have to like their chances in a 10 point game--ahead or behind--going into the fourth quarter.

4. Playoff games turn on unexpected players making explosive plays as much as "great" players making them. The presumed underdog typically has to own the explosive plays (20+ yards) to pull off an upset. I love Seattle's chances to make explosive plays in any phase (offense, defense, special teams). I can see Washington making them on offense, but not really in any other area. But then, that's what would make one unexpected.

I never make predictions in these things -- not in a parity-driven league. I have yet to see a case that Washington is a significantly better team in any phase, and yet that tells us nothing about what will happen Sunday night other than giving us a rough sense of the odds. I would hope that every Seattle fan who lived through or saw Beast Quake is smart enough to recognize that either of these teams is capable of playing well above or below its norm. Take nothing for granted and just enjoy the game.

How Big of a Problem is Seattle's Pass Rush?

dcrockett17 — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:40:26 -0000

Part of my fan ritual is to take a gander every couple days at Rob Staton's inestimable Seahawks Draft Blog. That site is an absolute treasure. (They were on top of Russell Wilson potentially starting over Matt Flynn in week 1 back in the spring, LONG before most anyone else.) In Rob's most recent "Instant Reactions" piece following the Rams game he notes:

First and foremost the pass rush simply wasn't good enough today and it's becoming a worrying trend. Seattle had zero sacks against a team that had given up 34 going into the final week of the season. Even putting Bruce Irvin on the field for early downs had little impact. When the Seahawks attack with four rushers, they struggle to create pressure. Considering rushing with four is at the heart of the teams defensive philosophy, it's a problem. Maybe things change in the playoffs? We can but hope. As things stand the pass rush has to be the teams greatest concern going into 2013.

I kind of agree with this assessment--on its face. Specifically interior pass rush may be the team's greatest need heading into the off-season, regardless of the outcome in the playoffs. But, I'm far less convinced that this is actually a BIG problem; the kind that requires a boatload of new resources.

I fear that the narrative about Seattle's pass rush problems throughout the Seahawks blogosphere--I'm hardly singling out Rob--may be entering the overreaction zone. I get it. Bradford had lots of time to throw yesterday, and that's been an issue to some degree all year. But, if the Rams game was a microcosm of the major problem (if not fatal flaw) with Pete Carroll's defense (i.e., not enough QB pressure) then it is certainly worth noting that the Rams did very little with all that time. They passed for a whopping 6 (unadjusted) yards per pass attempt. And that's not just about Sam Bradford channeling Captain Checkdown. Cold Hard Football facts ranks Seattle's defense 4th overall in Defensive "Real" Yards per Attempt at 5.4 for the season. And note, Seattle has done this playing one of the NFL's most difficult schedules. This defense has held the following teams under 24 points: DAL (7 points), GB (12), NE (23), SF (13, 13), and CAR (12). These are all top 12 offenses in DVOA and top 15 in "Real" Yards per Attempt. So, either Seattle is doing something right without racking up a ton of sacks or doing something fluky/unsustainable. It's getting tougher and tougher to argue the latter.

To be perfectly clear, NOBODY would like to see Sheldon Richardson on this team more than me. (I'm a Mizzou fan through and through, and followed his recruitment from his junior year forward. My head might actually explode if Richardson winds up in Seattle.) Still, I see two problems with the way the "Seattle needs a 3-technique" narrative is unfolding among us 12s:

1. We may be underappreciating how Pete Carroll & Gus Bradley are scheming to limit opposing QBs.

Sacks and pressures are crude measures of pass defense. Yards per Attempt (with various adjustments) is so much more informative. On that basis (where 7 unadjusted ypa is generally considered good for a QB), this defense has been quite good all season except vs. Miami (9.7 unadjusted ypa), Chicago (8.7), and Detroit (7.2). I don't know film the way some others do, but I have seen enough of this scheme and read enough about it to know that it's unorthodox. Carroll and Bradley think about pass defense differently than most people. Seattle has a shutdown corner but unlike Rex Ryan doesn't use him to take gambles in the front seven. Quite the contrary, Carroll and Bradley are extremely conservative in how they seek to pressure the QB. Not only do they typically rush just four. They don't even run many stunts (compared to Chicago, a defense that shares much of the same underlying philosophy).

Instead, it appears to my untrained eye that the Seahawks pay the most attention to discouraging long passes by keeping QBs stationed between the tackles (or saving that, rolling back away from the line of scrimmage). Carroll and Bradley seem to place a high premium on staying out of the kinds of scramble drills that Russell Wilson and RGIII specialize in creating where they break contain and find receivers running free in the secondary. My understanding is that Carroll and Bradley's defense tasks the front four with creating a baseline amount of discomfort for the QB, but just as importantly it tasks them with imposing a consistent launch point on the QB. They expect the back seven to know route combinations and to anticipate and disrupt them. To do that effectively, when DBs have their backs to the line of scrimmage so often, the QB's launch point can't be all over the place. We see Richard Sheman leading the NFL in passes defensed but he needs the front four to keep the QB in jail and make his life there as miserable as possible. But if forced to choose between the two, Carroll and Bradley's defense places much more emphasis on keeping the QB in jail.

2. We may be setting ourselves up for bitter disappointment when PC/JS refuse to overpay/overdraft for a 3-technique.

Nothing I am saying should preclude Seattle from looking to upgrade the 3-technique, but if I'm right it may mean that PC/JS may not value the position the way many of us do. Thinking back to last off-season, Pete Carroll was crystal clear that upgrading the pass rush was priority #1. He did that primarily with the surprising selection of Bruce Irvin 15th overall. Then signing Jason Jones to a 1-year deal to provide interior pass rush was complementary; the classic "low expectation/high upside" signing.

I can see a similarly low key off-season at the 3-technique. I would be surprised to see Seattle trade up to select Sheldon Richardson or Star Lutulelei. (Though former Rivals 5-star Florida DT, Shariff Floyd could be a target in the 2nd round.) But the answer to the 3-technique issues--or at least the answer the staff is looking for--may yet be on the roster. Even if Alan Branch is not re-signed to start at the 3-tech, I anticipate the staff is more likely to add rotational depth rather than pay for Henry Melton or Randy Starks. The team likes Clint McDonald, another guy Schneider acquired in a low key deal. He could play the "Craig Terrill" role as a nominal starter who rotates with a number of guys including 7th rounder Greg Scruggs. Additionally, I remain excited about 4th round pick Jaye Howard. We may be getting spoiled by the likes of Bobby Wagner and K.J. Wright stepping on the field right away. Howard may have needed a "redshirt" year but I believe the coaching staff likes him a lot.

1. We may be underappreciating how Pete Carroll & Gus Bradley are scheming to limit opposing QBs.

2. We may be setting ourselves up for bitter disappointment when PC/JS refuse to overpay/overdraft for a 3-technique.

Rams at Seahawks: Things-I-Think-I-Think-Style

dcrockett17 — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:06:35 -0000

With one regular season game remaining, the Seahawks are getting the attention from the national chatterboxes that many fans have craved. The final regular season matchup brings the Rams to CLink. The Rams for their part, represent yet another rock 'em sock 'em NFC West defense. Football Outsiders ranks the St. Louis defense 11th in weighted DVOA, 8th against the pass and 10th against the run. A Rams win--an upset, if not a monumental one--would represent one of the very few times a team that goes undefeated in its division would miss the playoffs. Win or lose (or tie, I suppose), the Rams are sitting on a bundle of draft picks to upgrade a roster with many of its building blocks already in place.

1. The critical question: what is Seattle's "real" baseline performance? Seattle is on an incredible run. This isn't the NBA where crappy teams can string together five or six quality games in late January. NFL teams that aren't really that good don't play at the level we have seen in the past few weeks. Still, we can't realistically expect the Seahawks to continue hanging 40-something on every opponent. Nobody performs at peak forever, even if they really are that good.

So naturally the question arises, what's Seattle's new baseline? What can we realistically expect? That's virtually impossible to say with any precision but I think it is fair to say that if this team is capable of going where we think it can we should see a soft landing from the peak rather than a crash landing. First, this Rams defense is quite good. So there's that. Perhaps more importantly, Seattle has had some incredibly fortunate bounces over the past few weeks that led to a ton of "add on" points. The early part of the season saw little turnover luck one way or the other, but consider the following plays in the past three games:

SF: Sherman's scoop and score of Red Bryant's blocked kick, Baldwin's field position flipping bounce-off-the-wet-jersey catch, McCoy's TD that could have been flagged for delay of game;
BUF (away): Fitzpatrick misses a wide open bomb to C.J. Spiller, Earl Thomas' incredible INT TD return that could have (incorrectly) been ruled a trap initially;
AZ: K.J. Wright's INT following Fitzgerald's bobble, Malcolm Smith's punt muff TD recovery.

To be perfectly clear, if you took all of those plays away the game outcomes would stay the same. But, each was a scoring play or field position flipping play. Had Seattle merely scored in the high 20s over the past few weeks the only thing missing would be some of the national accolades. I'm just spitballing it, but an offense that can consistently put up 20+ points on good defenses seems like a reasonable baseline.

2. Seattle should assign someone to Pete Carroll on the sidelines. Preferably to fan and mist him, lest his "hormones" cause him to once again gamble away field position against this thoroughly mediocre offensive team. That road loss sticks in my craw the worst of any loss this season because the coaching staff really stunk up the joint when all they had to be was mediocre to get an early season road win. The Rams typically have to work really hard for their points. Cold Hard Football Facts (hat tip to Hawkblogger's podcast with Softy) rates the Rams 27th on their "scoreability index. FO's drive stats kinda tell the same story. You have to make the Rams convert drives.

3. I'm looking forward to seeing Janoris Jenkins. Like San Francisco, St. Louis has accumulated enough high early draft picks that some of them are starting to blossom. Chris Long and Russell Okung should be a whale of a matchup, especially that Long now has a little better surrounding talent. But the guy I really want to see is Jenkins. I know he's a ball hawk but I am hearing that he is stout in coverage, he tackles, he's the goods. Fisher and Carroll certainly do some fundamentally similar things with their defensive backs.

4. I'm ambivalent about winning the division crown. Seattle isn't in any position to be looking ahead to any team other than St. Louis. To be frank, I think Seattle may be better off long-term playing in the first round even if they beat the Rams. This team is still learning how to win and to be consistent. Playing your best football in December and January is more valuable than rest for this team at this stage of its growth. If we take the view that the "window" for this core group of players will (theoretically) stay open a few seasons and then add in Seattle's relatively good overall health this season, I'd offer that beating the Rams is the most important thing Seattle can accomplish Sunday. It is far more important anything San Francisco or Green Bay does.

Mizzou at UCLA: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:25:03 -0000

1. Somebody has to be able to set the offense other than Pressey. So, Missouri had 20 assists. Flip had 19 of them. Seeing as how Michael Dixon, Jr. is not walking through that door somebody else must step into the backup PG role. Flip can't play every minute, but when he leaves the floor the offense just becomes an unwatchable train wreck. And even when he is on the floor it's starting to become too hard. I'm starting to see people standing around and waiting for him to do something great. No one else is a competent ball handling threat right now. Missouri doesn't need another Phil Pressey. Missouri needs another player that can competently handle the ball and set the offense.

Right now, Negus Webster-Chan is the presumptive backup point guard. In truth though, I'm not sure how much the Tigers can count on NWC in that role this year. I really like his skill set, and the light may yet come on. There's a lot of basketball left. He just seems much more comfortable as a big guard/small forward that hits the boards rather than sets people up. So here's the thing. Frank Haith forgot more about basketball on his way to the lobby this morning than I'll ever know. If he puts NWC in the backup PG role then I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's doing. If that's the direction though, Haith may need to force feed him minutes in the role and live with the results as he develops.

2. UCLA beat us up the floor consistently. Missouri goes hard to the offensive glass, but at times really loses defensive floor balance. That will show up on film, and you can bet Florida, Kentucky, et al. will take note. For all the (justifiable) griping about how Mike Anderson's style left the team vulnerable on the boards it's worth noting that Haith's style can leave the team vulnerable to easy buckets. UCLA was also running out on Missouri makes, suggesting that the bigs struggled to get down the floor. On a somewhat related notes, the Wear twins played ball tonight. If two pick-and-pop bigs like that are hitting shots at 18 feet there's not a lot you will be able to do defensively. This was a bad night to be without Tony Criswell.

Bonus Thought: It sure felt like tonight was Keion Bell's best game as a Tiger. The blown layup was a real shame for a guy who overall played a really good game in precisely the role we need. He's an energizer bunny who really brought it defensively.

Mizzou 82, Illinois 73: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:48:28 -0000

Well now that was exciting, no?

1. Pressey giveth and Pressey taketh away. Give Illinois credit. They challenged shots and forced a LOT of misses. Missouri shot a dreadful percentage, headlined by Pressey's 0-fer-until-late. Nineteen FGAs is probably a bit much most nights, but keep in mind that Haith played a short bench and neither Ross nor Bell contributed much in the second half. In truth, I'm more bothered by Flip's incessant need to split every double team and dribble the ball into trouble. But, the court vision. Wow. Sometimes you just have to live with a Flip-being-Flip kind of game--especially if he's going to play the way he did on defense. He put Brandon Paul in jail during stretches of the second half.

2. Jabari Brown sure does look the part. When I saw 18 points I was like, "He didn't score any kind of 18 points." I absolutely love that I barely noticed his efficient shooting game even though I thought I was paying attention to him.

Forty-Niners at Seahawks: Post-(Psuedo)Apocalyptic-Anticipation-Style

dcrockett17 — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:51:35 -0000

T'is the season of anticipation; that feeling of low-intensity euphoria that you get in the pit of your belly when you're waiting for something.

It's that sense of anticipation I love about watching the 2012 Seattle Seahawks. Something great can happen on any play in any game, and great things are starting to happen pretty darn regularly. By great, I don't necessarily mean plays like Stevie Johnson's one-handed masterpiece. I don't recall Seattle making a comparably acrobatic play all season. Rather, Pete Carroll's Seahawks are learning to be great within the confines of any ordinary play. I'm talking about plays like Sidney Rice's perfect route and catch vs. New England or Marshawn Lynch trucking Dashon Goldston at San Francisco. As the season has unfolded, we are seeing more Seahawks execute their assignments with that kind of mastery on an increasingly regular basis.

49ers fans must certainly feel the same sense of anticipation. San Francisco is consistently doing great things on the field. As others have noted, when the 49ers play their "A" game I think they're the best team in the NFL.

1. San Francisco's running game is like Marvin Hagler's jab--explosive. The 49ers do so much with formations, varied blocking combinations, and a stable of talented backs that they get explosive plays in the run game. Seattle is going to give up some yards on the ground Sunday night. The run defense has certainly declined since the first game and San Francisco is the best running team in the NFL. But, giving up yards is not the same as allowing San Francisco to control the game with its rushing attack. The distinction is critical.

Seattle gave up big yards to Minnesota (Adrian Peterson) and Buffalo (C.J. Spiller) but neither rushing attack controlled the game, in no small part because Seattle buckled down in the red zone. By contrast, San Francisco was getting 5+ yards on virtually every run in the first half before Gore started breaking off long runs. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to just shut down the 49ers run game, but Seattle has to beat blocks some times, fill gaps, and tackle.

2. San Francisco's passing game is the bigger concern. In the October game Gore and Hunter ran over, around, and through Seattle for 175 yards but San Francisco scored only 13 points despite excellent field position. San Francisco had only 138 yards passing. Since the bye week and the switch to Kaepernick the 49er offense has had only one poor offensive showing (@ STL) in expected points, passing for more than 150 yards in each game. Michael Crabtree is quietly having an excellent season, 17th in WR DVOA, catching 70% of his targets with 7 TDs. Ditto Vernon Davis, who is 8th in TE DVOA, catching 67% of his targets with 5 TDs. Frankly, I'd live with Gore, et al. getting another 175 yards if Seattle can turn Kaepernick into Captain Checkdown (and keep him from getting on the edge).

3. Who can bring their "A" game? Both teams have been quite volatile in terms of week-to-week performance. So, the team that plays their "A" game (or closest to it) Sunday night almost certainly wins, barring some weirdness like we saw last Sunday at Foxborough. In overall terms, Seattle is middle-of-the-pack (16th) in week-to-week volatility while San Francisco is a bottom-of-the-pack 31st. (Only the Giants are more Jeckll and Hyde.) Seattle is probably a safer bet to play well at home but it's not enough to hang one's hat on.

All this is to say that this game features two pretty evenly matched teams. Almost any factor could turn the game in either team's favor. It should be one of the best games of the year. I can't wait.

Seahawks at Bills Preview: Things-I-Think-I-Think Style

dcrockett17 — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:26:19 -0000

So I hear Seattle is playing Buffalo in Toronto, the Bizarro Detroit. Although the Seahawks are not quite as poor on the road as the record and national narrative suggest, the team also hasn't played well away from the CLink either. Sunday is the last chance. A good road performance is definitely on my bodes-well-for-the-post-season checklist. A win doesn't help much, unless other teams also falter. But, at this time of the year if you're not winning you're faltering. Playing well in Toronto can put to rest some lingering questions about how well this young team responds to a bit of success. At Miami, not so good. At Chicago, better*

Buffalo, for its part, is not likely to donate a second unscheduled bye week to the cause like Arizona did. The Bills have more than enough talent to command a good road effort from the Seahawks. They have home run hitters like C. J. Spiller and Stevie Johnson on offense along with an interesting mix of emerging players (e.g., Jairus Byrd and Marcel Darius) and pricey vets (e.g., Mario Williams and Kyle Williams) on defense. Don't forget field-flipping return specialists in Brad Smith and Leodis McKelvin.

*The win at Chicago was more exciting than well-played.

Here's a few things I think I think about the matchups.

1. On offense, Buffalo is like a low on-base-percentage, strikeout-prone power-hitter in baseball. Seattle can't be afraid to challenge Buffalo but can't afford to hang too many sliders either.

On a per drive basis, the "low on-base-percentage" analogy* definitely fits the Bills. Buffalo does not convert many of its drives into anything good. They punt almost 45% of the time (23rd) yet don't create good field position. And then they turn it over on another 17% of drives (27th), just to round out the portfolio.

*Serious question to Bills fans or Field Gulls readers who know their Xs and Os. What am I missing with Chan Gailey's offenses? I see neither innovation nor impressive production. Perhaps because I associate him so strongly with Ga Tech and his former QB protege, Reggie Ball (pound-for-pound the worst supposedly good college player I ever saw), that I may be missing something important.

What Buffalo does well is hit "doubles" and "home runs". Its rush offense (9th in DVOA) is big play oriented while effectively avoiding negative plays. The adjusted line yards is an impressive 4.36 and the "second level" and "open field" rankings are both top three. C.J. Spiller ranks 2nd (just ahead of Beast Mode) in DYAR. Unfortunately, Seattle is only middling this season against second level and open field runs. Now on the flip side, Buffalo "strikes out" a fair bit too. The Bills get explosive plays in the running game but few drive-extending short yardage plays (29th in power success while Seattle ranks first defensively against such runs). The Hawks will need to hold up in short yardage situations because the Bills are likely to have some explosive runs.

For its part the pass offense is more middling than bad. Buffalo is a quality pass blocking team, so that's not the issue. Their adjusted sack rate (5.8%) is a few spots better than Seattle's (6.2%). At QB, Fitzpatrick is quintessentially "meh" but he's pretty close to awful. QBR ranks him 27th trailing the likes of Vick (26th), Bradford (25th), and Hasselbeck (24th) while there's not much behind him. Brady Quinn is 28th and Carson Palmer is 29th. QBR punishes his 13 INTs more severely than DVOA and DYAR, who compare him more favorably to Andrew Luck and Joe Flacco.

In addition to being Buffalo's top RB, Spiller is probably the team's best receiver for explosive ability plus consistency. The top WRs, Stevie Johnson and Donald Jones, who rank 58th and 61st, respectively in DYAR, are something of a poor man's Rice and Tate. Johnson has really poor hands (52% catch rate). Brad Smith (Go Mizzou!) is a low usage but productive 3rd WR and occasional Wildcat QB. TE Scott Chandler's 6 TD catches place him among the position leaders. He can be a matchup issue with his size (6'7" #270) in short yardage and red zone. But, his shockingly low catch rate for a TE (57%) and enviable 13 yards per catch suggests that Buffalo also features him down the field. (Feel free to chime in on this Bills fans. I have not seen the Bills play this season.)

Of course, the Bills middling passing attack will be facing a somewhat depleted and inexperienced secondary. Jeremy Lane and Byron Maxwell will see the bulk of the action at cornerback.

2. On defense, Buffalo has improved from unspeakably awful to show some flashes in recent weeks. So, what's more diagnostic--season totals or recent games?

Over the season, on a per drive basis, only Oakland is worse at preventing touchdowns and only New Orleans has a lower drive success rate (combined first downs and touchdowns). In DVOA terms, Buffalo ranks 26th. (They improve to 21st using weighted DVOA, which de-emphasizes early season games.) The only phases of pass defense where the Bills rank better than 20th are against top TEs (1st) and sack rate (12th). Against the run, the Bills compare favorably to Seattle in that they are middling at preventing long runs but are much worse than Seattle against power (24th vs 1st).

All of this defensive suckage has come against one of the league's most forgiving schedules. Allow me to put things in context. Remember all the talk this week about what we couldn't learn from the Arizona game because their defense just quit? Well, in terms of expected points (-16.75) Buffalo has played five worse defensive games this year! Buffalo's defense against SF was more than twice as bad as Arizona's was last week. Given the franchise's recent investments on defense, that must be bitterly disappointing.

So it's cakewalk city in Canada then, eh? Like a trip to Timmy's for donuts and homo milk, you say? Well, pump the brakes on your toboggan there frere Jacques. All but one of those five games (New England at Foxborough) came before the bye. Since then, the Bills have looked more like an NFL defense. Getting Mario Williams back from injury has to help. Add to that the Bills' most recent games have come against some pretty bad offenses, save Indianapolis. (To be fair though the Bills gave Miami's offense what for while we just gave them first downs, and they weren't bad at all against Indianapolis.) Now Seattle's offense will certainly be a challenge.

The season-long data pretty clearly shows that things have gotten ugly when Buffalo faces quality offenses, and you can't just toss that data out. Even in recent games they haven't exactly choked the life out of the two "decentish" offenses they've faced--St. Louis and Indianapolis. What they've done is stomp on bad offenses and keep the team in the game against quality offenses. That's kinda what I expect to see. I expect Seattle to be able to score but probably not run away and hide unless something weird happens like it did last week.

3. Limiting Spiller requires some creativity on defense.

Working at the University of South Carolina afforded me the opportunity to see C.J. Spiller play at Clemson several times. The Gamecocks were pretty successful in limiting his damage. It wasn't just one thing they did, in no small part because Spiller is so versatile. I did, however, note two things about what Spurrier's defenses did to limit Spiller. Neither is genius-level scheming, but I believe both still apply.

(a) In the run game, setting the edge is critical. Like Reggie Bush, Spiller would like to bounce it outside. That's where the big plays are. He looks fast on film but on the field he has blinding speed. The defense must set the edge, keep him in traffic, trust the inside guys to get there and live with the results. Crash too hard from the edge and give him cutback lanes, and you will have a 'sho nuff problem. Additionally, you have to hit Spiller at every available opportunity even on play fakes.

(b) In the pass game, make him pass block. If I recall, South Carolina designed some blitzes to force Spiller to stay in and block as much as pressure the QB. He's an okay-at-best blocker, but just as importantly blocking is a waste of his talents. Defensively, you want someone else to beat you. I haven't watched Buffalo, but it would hardly surprise if Gailey's decision to stick with Fred Jackson is due in no small part to blocking. I don't know if Buffalo lines him out wide to get him away from the fray, but he runs routes and catches like a WR. So if Seattle sends a LB out there with him it is not likely to end well.

Seahawks beat Cardinals: Don't sleep on this game - This Was BIG!

dcrockett17 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:13:52 -0000

Let's get something out of the way right now. Arizona is in shambles. I have lived in Arizona (and grew up in St. Louis), so my heart goes out to Larry Fitzgerald, to Cardinals fans, and to the ghost of Roy Green. Around 30 years ago while baby Larry Fitzgerald was still suckling, Roy Green was busy having a burgeoning Hall of Fame career ruined by Bidwell family incompetence. What's that line that ends, "...the second time as farce"?

It will be easy for the pundits and many fans to dismiss this game. "Yeah yeah," they'll say. "Seattle's a nice young team but Arizona just laid down and quit. This was Arkansas versus Alabama." In a game that was over so quickly, few will care to discuss its nuances. But, if we dismiss it because of the score we'll miss some critical lessons in the lifecycle of this young team.

Lesson #1: Arizona's offense has been bad, but Seattle took the Cardinals to a qualitatively different place.

We knew Arizona had the worst offense in the NFL by both advanced and traditional measures. So let's put this game into context. This doesn't make Seattle the '84 Bears, but this was an unusually dominant victory. We will have to wait for the DVOA updates for this week, but I am guessing this game will be in the discussion for the most thoroughly dominant of the DVOA era. Using expected points* here as a quick and dirty measure, this was a -37.39 performance. Wow!

UPDATE on the above point: Per Football Outsiders:

"...The Seahawks come out with the third-highest single-game DVOA rating of all-time (i.e. since 1991). That's pretty remarkable considering that a lot of their dominance was based on fumble recovery, and DVOA is giving less credit for that -- especially for recovering a muffed punt, since muffed punts are almost always recovered by the return team.

Seattle was firing on all three cylinders yesterday: They had an offensive DVOA of 55.5%, defensive DVOA of -68.7%, and special teams DVOA of 16.2%."

So, there you go.

Arizona's worst offensive performances have all been in its most recent games: -26.77 (NYJ), -17.62 (STL), and -25.36 (ATL). So clearly, the wheels have been coming off since the bye week. But, I submit that this performance was not just the continuation of a trend. It was almost 11 expected points better than what the Jets did. For comparison, in Chicago's week five 41-3 beatdown Jacksonville was -26.48. Even Rod Marinelli's 0-16 Lions never had a -30 game.

So, this game was not as much about Arizona as the score and the sad state of the franchise might imply. This does not seem like your typical blowout; not based on what one might have expected based on field position, down, and distance. It may be telling us something about what this Seattle could become.

*From pro-football-reference: Expected points are an estimate of points per play based on down, distance, and yard line. Points given for offense and defense are offensive/defensive plays + penalties on which there was no play (eg, a false start). Special teams are all kicking + punting plays. Points are zeroed out at the ends [sic] of halves.[Expected points are not opponent-adjusted; comparable to Football Outsiders' VOA.]

Lesson #2: This was a "peak" performance, not a new baseline. So, we should adjust for some turnover luck but not as much as you may think.

What set this apart from a garden variety blowout was obviously turnovers and the field position it bestowed. Seattle has not had exceptional luck, good or bad, in recovering fumbles this season. So, the multiple fumble recoveries seem more fluky than repeatable. (The Malcolm Smith touchdown was just weird. I hadn't seen a kicked ball touchdown like that since Matt Davison broke my heart.)

However, as I noted in my preview interceptions were a different story. Based on how well they play the ball, Seattle seemed due and Arizona was the right opponent to get healthy. At the same time the Cardinals generate lots of interceptions while Russell Wilson is probably due an interception correction game (that may yet come). I didn't any kind of way predict four interceptions as much as say Seattle's defense gets hands on enough passes to have a LOT more interceptions. That part is repeatable.

Lesson #3: As the offense matures Bevell looks a lot smarter.

Bevell probably takes more than his fair share of grief from fans, as do pretty much all playcallers. That comes with the job. It is worth noting, though, that Seattle's last negative expected points offensive game was at San Francisco--and there have only been four. So, legitimate gripes with this play or that play notwithstanding, this hasn't been a bad offense for quite some time. In fact, Bevell has X'd and O'd his ass off in the past two weeks against some STOUT defenses.

The zone read package versus Chicago took advantage of their aggressive ends. We had scarcely seen that play since Carolina. Against Arizona he put in an Anthony McCoy package for taking shots downfield (rather than relying on Rice and Tate). We have been taking most of those shots with Miller, but had not seen McCoy go down the field really since Dallas. Nice. Turnovers aside, the first and second touchdown drives--when it was still a game--were 85 and 73 yards. Arizona's defense was 4th in DVOA (2nd against the pass) against the 6th toughest schedule.

Maybe this offense has just needed some time to bake.

The most recurrent (and perhaps legitimate) critique of Bevell in this forum is that he is seemingly slow to recognize what's working and whom. At the risk of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, I think fans are much quicker to observe "obvious" trends in performance, then declare what's working, where coaches only observe noise. Coaches observe far more data points, and sometimes stubbornly so, want to see consistency before rewarding players with playing time.

Coaches are not always correct in their conclusions, obviously, fans frequently have little appreciation or patience for the time it takes people and teams to mature. Maturation with teams is like it is with anything else. It takes as long as it takes. You can't know a priori how long it will take for a coordinator and the talent on hand to mesh. This team is built to run. We know it can do that. But it has taken twelve games really to figure out who else can do what else consistently. In that sense, over the past few weeks I think we've seen the team grow and Bevell grow with it.

Cardinals at Seahawks: Things-I-Think-I-Think Style

dcrockett17 — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:18:05 -0000

1. In the fourth quarter teams get desperate. So, watch out.

It's the official "fourth quarter" of the NFL season and the playoffs are coming into sharper focus. Seattle is firmly entrenched in the hunt while perennially downtrodden Arizona is once again playing out the string. Looks like an easy win, right? Not exactly. It looks like a likely win. That's not the same as easy. Pre-Holmgren Era Seahawks fans should be familiar with the difference. We saw the 'Hawks play the "downtrodden but feisty" role for many seasons. Back in those days we'd see the old aphorism that "the hardest miles in the marathon are the last few" come to life every now and then. Teams that expected to just show up and win would find themselves in dogfights in the old Kingdome. Simple things that had been so easy in the first twelve games could get far more difficult in the last four. In the NFL "cognitive load" accumulates. Burdensome cognitive loads can overload the brain, causing hesitation and uncertainty at the most inopportune times.

All that is to say that if the past two games have caused you to pull out your hair and damn-near faint from delirious, euphoric exhaustion it's probably not going to get any better for you. Nobody may be picking Arizona to win, and rightly so, but I anticipate a dogfight rather than a cakewalk. (Arizona has the best defense Seattle has faced and the worst offense by DVOA and on a per drive basis.) So seriously, do your heart a favor and replace your pre-game anxiety-induced irritability with some pre-game meditation. Your spouse and children, not to mention the game thread, will thank you.

2. Arizona has some matchup advantages.

Arizona isn't good at QB with Kolb or Skelton, but the Cardinals are a bit less helpless than they were last week. Even semi-competent QB play allows Arizona to exploit some matchup advantages. I'd be shocked if they didn't take a page out of Chicago's book and mostly throw against our base defense, running just enough to keep it honest. Chicago saw success (at least in raw yardage terms) moving Brandon Marshall around to find favorable matchups. I imagine the Cards will do the same with Larry Fitzgerald.

For Seattle, playing without suspended CB Brandon Browner, communication breakdowns may be a bigger concern than coverage breakdowns. Thurmond was hardly noticeable last week, a good sign in his first game back. I am also excited for Lane, but I would be shocked if either plays mistake-free on Sunday. We will need to see Earl Thomas' best Lofa Tatupu impersonation. He'll need to be a very busy traffic cop.

When Seattle has the ball, it will most likely be a struggle. Based on expected points, Arizona's defense has had only three mildly bad to semi-bad games (SF, GB, and STL). Arizona's big, athletic corners can challenge our receivers on balls in flight (their strength). Darnell Dockett presents problems in the best of circumstances. Having him matched up against McQuistan and Moffitt (rather than a healthy Carpenter) does not give me the warm fuzzies. Add to that, Arizona's LB group may be the team's strongest overall unit.

I don't mean to sound like Arizona should be favored. But their defense is every bit as good as SF's (or better). So, you're fooling yourself if you expect anything other than a dogfight when Seattle has the ball. Seattle's clearest path to victory lies in the defense shrinking the field and putting the offense in favorable scoring positions. Arizona's clearest path to victory mostly involves the same thing, but with a bit more of the offense not screwing things up and striking opportunistically.

3. Hidden Yards are always a big deal in the NFC West.

There are no Dennis Erickson-style teams in the NFC West. Every team (ideally) emphasizes field flipping plays outside the offense (like explosive kick/punt returns and forced turnovers). Seattle has generally been good at kick returns but mediocre at everything else, especially forcing turnovers. Seattle has recovered 7 fumbles and lost 8.

However, interceptions have been oddly non-existent. Seattle's talented secondary gets its hands on a good number of passes but converts a paltry 15.6% of them into interceptions, 22nd overall. That's certainly an area where the team could get healthy against Arizona by getting out to a lead. By contrast, Arizona intercepts a healthy 25% of passes defensed (2nd overall). I know better than to openly question Russell Wilson (all hail!) but his current interception streak (roughly 120 passes without) is probably unsustainable. So you can see how this sets up as a game where points are likely to be at a premium and interceptions could easily flip the field. What's less clear is which team will be throwing them and which will be catching them.

Arizona has been somewhat mediocre on special teams overall, except punts and field goals*/PATs--the two areas where Seattle struggles (of course) despite being excellent overall on special teams. The point here is that by far the most likely way that either team will score 24 or more is via turnovers or field flipping returns. That's going to be the case for all of the remaining division games.

*I had no idea until last Sunday that no opponent had missed a field goal against Seattle. WTF?

4. The fourth quarter is about depth.

Both in games and in seasons, what happens in the fourth quarter is often a testament to a team's depth. Pete Carroll and John Schneider have spent two off-seasons building a roster from the bottom up precisely to have the depth to close out regular seasons like this one. I for one am very excited to see how this group performs in the fourth quarter against an elite defense.

Seattle at Chicago: Preview of Contingencies

dcrockett17 — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:03:44 -0000

Part of watching a team grow up is coming to grips with the fact that growth is not a linear process but a contingent one. Or to be more precise, growth only looks linear in retrospect. There's a lot of "if this then that" when you watch a young team grow up. We look back on teams like the recent Super Bowl Giants teams and gloss over the wild swings in their development, and dismiss the moments that might have derailed it. We look back on dynasties and would-be dynasties and view them as one inexorable march to destiny. But in truth, any number of contingencies that seemed innocuous at the time might have significantly altered their course. In real time, growth is messy. Ask any 49ers fan.

It is tempting to look at last week's road loss to the Dolphins as a total fail. It was certainly a failure, but all losses are not equally diagnostic. For instance, we didn't learn much from the Rams loss other than "don't do stupid things Pete Carroll." But I think this young team and this coaching staff learned some valuable lessons at Miami (especially on defense). We may yet look back on that game as necessary short-term pain for long-term gain. (Or we may look back on it as the game that kept us out of the playoffs. Could be both.)

In that spirit, I want to set up this preview of the Bears game as a series of contingencies; questions that will get at least partial answers today.

1. Will body clocks be ready? It has become de rigueur to dismiss any and all talk of internal clocks. And I get it. No sense complaining about what cannot be changed. In many ways, what I saw in Miami--pretty much the toughest road trip in the NFL--is quite the opposite of what I would have anticipated. Seattle hung in there, even dictated on defense in the first half. Then in the second half they got sluggish, particularly along both lines. I have little idea what to expect today. Seattle has played well at Soldier Field in recent years. I think that is in no small part because Chicago is no more difficult a trip than St. Louis on the internal clock.

2. How will Seattle attack Chicago's quick passing game? The Bears aren't dumb (I don't think). They are no doubt aware that teams have had success against Seattle with quick passing, targeting our slot corner and LBs. Seattle's response to quick passing is to allow teams to throw short and look to punish receivers. That approach saw some success against New England and Minnesota. More recently though, teams have converted big plays with the quick passing game. Here is the lingering question. What kinds of adjustments will Seattle make? It looks like Walter Thurmond, III will play some today as the slot corner. So, it may be as simple as hoping to get better play from the slot corner position and invite Cutler to hold the ball. We know he likes to do that. However, many are calling for Seattle to be more aggressive in base defense. Specifically, blitz more often to create pressure on early downs.

3. Can we avoid the big coverage breakdown? It certainly appears that Seattle has consistently given up cheap scores (e.g., Wes Welker, Titus Young) or field-flipping plays (Davon Bess) in close games. It is rarely more than one, but for a team that plays in a lot of close games the cheap scores or field-flipping plays can just be killer. Today, Chicago should have only one player on the field who creates those kinds of plays--Brandon Marshall. But then, we thought that about Calvin Johnson at Detroit. Chicago, to its credit, moves Marshall around to get favorable matchups (something I wish we'd do more of with Golden Tate). But, I have some concern about Earl Bennett and Matt Forte. Bennett is in and out of the lineup with injuries, and that may have more to do with his low number of targets and catches. I know that Cutler played with Bennett at Vanderbilt and trusts him implicitly. Bennett is quite similar to Davon Bess in skill set, and that kind of guy has given us fits.

4. Does our offensive line show up? Last week was the worst game in a long time. For all the vitriol aimed at Bevell last week, what do you dial up with the offensive line isn't pass blocking any better than run blocking? Miami is perhaps more stout than Chicago up front defensively, but they lack a dominant pass rusher. This group is better than it played last week. How much better is unknown.

5. Can Seattle dominate hidden yards? I was dead wrong last week about hidden yards (return yards, penalties, field position flipping turnovers). I thought Miami had to dominate the category to win. In truth, Seattle really needs to dominate this category to win, especially on the road. With a low volume offense like ours the only way we are likely to score a lot of points is to get extra possessions and/or start on short fields. This should be one of the fun battles of the game, because Chicago is quite intentional about dominating hidden yards.

Two Post-Season Thoughts: A Post-Mortem

dcrockett17 — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:08:00 -0000

At the risk of repeating too much of what Bill said in his intro to 2013, it's worth taking a minute to put a bow on a pretty sucky football season.

1. We learned some things.

I NEVER bet on sports, especially college sports. But this past off-season I'd have easily wagered a couple bucks that Missouri's wide receiver unit would be among the three best in the SEC.

Things quickly Chinua Achebe'd.

My justifiable optimism for 2012 weakened a bit in training camp with Franklin's injury, but then injury turned out to be the theme for the season (barely beating out crazy snaps from center that were amazing in their consistency--either "high and hard" or "soft and low"). Some seasons just never get off the ground despite everyone's hopes, but they still furnish us with informative data. As loyal RMNers our task in the coming days and weeks is to figure out what the data tells us, and what it doesn't, about this season and seasons to come. (Note: I use "data" in the broadest sense. Stats are one kind of data; systematic observation is another. Both can enlighten.)

Here are a few points where I think both observational and statistical data will eventually tell the same story once everything is all tallied: (a) Missouri ran the ball in the SEC (if you ignore the silly practice of subtracting QB sack yards) with a beat up QB and backup offensive linemen in constant rotation*, (b) "running the ball" is perhaps not the unassailable virtue many make it out to be, (c) the talent at the top of Mizzou's roster, players 1-5, is competitive with all but the three best teams on the schedule (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina**), (d) but, we absolutely need more talent throughout the roster.

Items (c) and (d) are based on my observation. Your mileage may vary.

*There is absolutely no compelling reason to doubt whether our basic schematic approach to offense can work in the SEC. There will always be questions about personnel, play-calling and tweaks, but the basic approach is fine. The end.

**Yes. I believe our five most talented players--Sheldon Richardson, E.J. Gaines, Kendial Lawrence, Kony Ealy, and healthy Elvis Fisher--are absolutely as good as Florida's.

2. Coaching transitions happen but the market is fickle.

Coaches get fired or just move on. That's the biz. It's a profession of migrant workers. I do not see coaches as "fungible", but the market supplies plenty of good (not great) ones. So if there are staff transitions at Mizzou, it is hardly the end of the world. Just remember what you felt like when Mike Anderson became Frank Haith.

As for potential transitions, no sense being coy. Now that it appears Gary Pinkel will return in 2013, the bulls eye moves squarely to offensive coordinator David Yost. To be clear, I believe Yost should stay. I see him as a considerable asset. Others will disagree, and are not unreasonable for doing so. However, any critique premised on the notion that David Yost is a bad offensive coordinator is just not grounded in fact. Yost has fielded good-to-very-good offenses several years running, both run- and pass-oriented, often making change on the fly to suit personnel. Now even good coaches like Yost are replaceable, but when you're a good-not-great program like Missouri the market is riskier. The market supplies plenty of good coaches, but few are clear upgrades if you already have a good coach. On the other hand, the risk of a poor fit is quite high. If you're smart you only go to the market when you are forced to clean house; not for upgrades. It's a much better deal to develop an already good staff than to go to the market to upgrade it.

Now, the offensive staff doesn't get entirely off the hook. Player development seems a legitimate area for an eyebrow raise over the past couple seasons. Development has been the hallmark of this outstanding coaching staff, so much so that I'm pretty sure I'm being blatantly unfair to raise the issue. No need to recount the names of lightly-recruited players who came here and blossomed, but the past couple years what sticks in my mind is the growing list of players who seem not to have taken a step forward. Jerrell Jackson, Rolandis Woodland, and Nick Demien (and to a lesser extent Chris Freeman) come to mind. Jackson was obviously a major contributor, but never a consistent one. (By contrast, I thought once we understood what Wes Kemp was he really maxed out.) Woodland and Demien for whatever reasons never developed. This year I think we all expected Marcus Lucas and L'Damian Washington to take a step forward. They improved by season's end, but not enough to offset what seemed like dramatic regression early. "S'up with that?" seems to be the question of the off-season.

BREAKING: Sherman and Browner Suspended for PEDs

dcrockett17 — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:41:23 -0000

BREAKING: Sherman and Browner Suspended for PEDs

Four games, as reported by Schefter. They are allegedly appealing.

Seahawks at Dolphins: Things-I-Think-I-Think-Style

dcrockett17 — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:29:21 -0000

A few things I think I think about Seattle's road performances and their matchup with Miami:

1. Seattle has been VERY competitive on the road. Seattle is 1-4 on the road this season, but the record is a bit misleading. The Hawks are averaging 15 points scored and allowing 18.4 away from home. At home Seattle scores 24.6 and allows 13.8. Clearly, the Seahawks have work to do on the road but they're not being outclassed at all. The road losses have each been by one score, where Seattle could tie or win on its last offensive possession. Seattle has every reason to be confident heading to Miami, but little reason to look past the Dolphins.

2. Seattle's offense vs Miami's defense is a lot like the Jets matchup. It features two high-quality units with strengths that mirror each other's. Just looking at the drive stats, Miami's defense is a slightly better version of New York's. The Jets excel at forcing fumbles while the Dolphins are better at stalling drives out. DVOA sees things similarly--as a matchup of top 10 units--with Seattle's offense ranked 9th and Miami's defense 10th. Inside those overall rankings, Seattle's passing game is rocketing upwards from its dismal early season showing to 8th overall. The run game has been elite all year (4th). It'll be interesting to see how well it holds up against Miami's stout run defense (5th in DVOA). However, the passing game should have its opportunities to put points on the board as Miami is ranked only 15th in pass defense. They have some injuries in the secondary.

How Bevell sets up this Miami defense is an interesting game within the game, just like against the Jets. I was fascinated by how Bevell would counter Rex Ryan's aggressive schemes, and he did so with aggressive play calls. (I was pleased to see he didn't fall into the trap of going ultra-conservative, even after the Wilson fumble for a TD.) I am curious how aggressive he will remain on the road.

3. Seattle's defense is better than Miami's offense There is little reason to suspect that Miami can move the ball consistently against Seattle's defense, again, a repeat of the Jets game. On a per drive basis, the Dolphins and Jets have virtually identical offenses. DVOA tells the same story. Miami doesn't run it or pass it efficiently. Ryan Tannehill's accuracy and blocked pass problems followed him from Texas A&M to the NFL, though he does some things well. Also, if you follow Omar Kelly (Dolphins beat writer for the Sun-Sentinel) on Twitter you are aware that Jake Long is no longer playing at an elite level. The opportunity is there for this defense to make some hay. If I have one fear about Miami's offense it is the possibility of Reggie Bush just having a game. I am less concerned about his ability to run the ball consistently than his ability to catch the ball underneath and extend drives.

4. Seattle must at least battle to a draw on "hidden" yards and explosive plays. Hidden yards come on (1) returns that set up favorable field position, (2) penalties that do the opposite, and of course (3) turnovers/returns that create extra possessions/favorable field position. Explosive plays (+20 yards) also create favorable field position and "cheap" scoring opportunities, similar to extra base hits in baseball.

Typically, the home team has some natural advantages in hidden yards and explosive plays. I think it's safe to say that Miami likely has to win hidden yardage convincingly to win the game. Seattle's offense is much better equipped to consistently drive a long field and/or create explosive plays than Miami's, but that's not a recipe for road success.

Syracuse 31 MU 27 Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 03:14:32 -0000

1. The respective offensive lines were the difference in the game. We ran it well with Kendial Lawrence. But, so many fits and starts. So many negative plays--negative yardage runs, multiple sacks while rushing three and dropping eight--kept us chasing the chains even when we got explosive plays. (This was also a flag-heavy crew. Not especially biased, just lots of flags.) My heart goes out to the offensive line. Although it has improved enough to allow us to see more explosive plays we still can't get consistency. Even our best offensive performances this season have been filled with fits and starts. This was a game where we needed consistency. We just couldn't find it. One area you REALLY have to credit Syracuse for superior play is in coverage. That was supposed to be a huge advantage, especially with Marcus Murphy playing, and it just wasn't.

2. Sometimes there's not much you can do with a hot, experienced QB. Ryan Nassib to Alec Lemon (against Randy Ponder) was a matchup that virtually always worked. Nassib put it on the money and Lemon caught pretty much everything that came his way. When we pressed their receivers they ran crossing routes and rubs. When we played off they got easy completions and big runs after catch. It's easy to blame Ponder (he was NOT good), but we couldn't pressure Nassib because you really can't pressure some QBs. Syracuse dictated matchups with formation and Nassib never missed a trick with all our shifting and whatnot. He always put his receivers where they needed to be. He got the ball out of his hands. He hit the hot read. They ran just enough to make us respect it. Nassib really never missed an open throw. Did we miss Sheldon Richardson? Hell yes, we missed him. A guy like that can always make a play. I'm just not sure that's why we lost.

One more shot at this in College Station. We've done it before.

Sheldon OUT vs. Syracuse

dcrockett17 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:36:05 -0000

Sheldon OUT vs. Syracuse

Gabe DeArmond ‏@GabeDeArmond
Premium info embargo over: Multiple sources indicate #Mizzou DT Sheldon Richardson suspended, will not play vs #Syracuse

Reyes and a Bunch of Marlins Moving to Toronto?

dcrockett17 — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:41:41 -0000

Reyes and a Bunch of Marlins Moving to Toronto?

Per Rosenthal and Buster, evidently a blockbuster trade has Reyes and other assets moving to Toronto.

Mizzou 51, Tennessee 48: Two Post-Game Thoughts

dcrockett17 — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 02:21:18 -0000

None but the most delusional Mizzou fans expected the team to outright win the SEC East without some monumental breaks. But even the most level-headed of us never expected the everything-but-a-plague-of-locusts season this has turned out to be.

Saturday was one of those days in college football -- and really, in all sports -- that puts such seasons in perspective. It reminds us of how much our hearts can soar and how much they can ache within mere minutes. Watching James Franklin slowly come to terms with the QB he is right now rather than the guy he was last year, to gut out a tough road win, makes my heart leap for a kid who deserves to have good things come his way. Then a few moments later, watching "Johnny Football" run around and make plays Texas A&M's monumental upset*, my heart felt a bit like Frodo's must have in that cave. I wish we didn't have a season so damaged by injury, and that our guy was making plays like he is capable. But so do all who lives to see such times, yes? Who are we that the rain should fall on the Aggies rather than us?

*All raise a glass to Beergut!

So, in the spirit of deciding what to do with the time that is given me I submit the following two post-game thoughts.

1. I am going to enjoy the guys whose MU careers are coming to an end. I can't believe Kendial Lawrence is a bloody senior, with just two regular season games left in his career. But what a senior season it has turned out to be! He was absolutely the spark on Saturday and really seems to be putting it all together. In the next couple games (and hopefully a bowl game) I'm going to be cheering like crazy for that guy. Marcus Murphy and Russell Hansborough need their touches too, but when KLaw is on the field I'm going to do my best to soak it all in.

2. I want to enjoy the offensive line's improvement. That group has gone through trial by fire. Beating Tennessee after trailing or being tied for the whole game is no guarantee that the trial is over, but it's just cool to see a group that has worked so hard to get better see some of the fruits of their labor.

Bonus thought. This looked like the WR group I expected to see this season. I suppose it doesn't matter where they've been, as long as they're back now. As they say in baseball, "Two out ain't too late."

Jets at Seahawks: Things-I-Think-I-Think Style

dcrockett17 — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:28:07 -0000

1. A Little Recognition is a Dangerous Thing (for a fan base).

Seattle is starting to emerge from the mouths of the national analysts as the proverbial "team to be reckoned with." Achieving that status is when a fan base officially enters the danger zone; that place where they much more easily start counting wins and overlooking opponents. Overlooking an opponent is mostly a fan delusion, as players and coaches are pretty heavily socialized against that.

2. The 'Chess Match' will Be Worth Watching.

Seattle is up to 6th while the NYJs rank a mere 19th in the most recent Football Outsiders DVOA stats. That's a pretty substantial disparity overall. In a vacuum, Seattle is the better team. But, it's worth noting that the overall disparity is largely driven by New York's terrible offense. It's safe to say that we'll ALL be pretty surprised if the Jets can consistently move the ball on long drives. There are two other phases to the game however, and the matchups there--in DVOA terms at least-- are much closer. NY is 12th on defense while Seattle's offense is 14th. NY is 7th in overall special teams while Seattle is 10th.

Of course, a matchup advantage as big as Seattle's defense (3rd) vs. NY's offense (27th) can easily dictate the flow (and outcome) of the game by itself. So the 'chess match' in this game is about who can dictate style. Both coaches are very willing to run three plays, punt, and play defense. Big turnovers aside, NY's best chance is a low-scoring punt fest.

As we saw at Cleveland last season, if both offenses are super-conservative having the "better" defense doesn't matter that much (unless the defense is creating huge field position advantages). Seattle wants to score enough to force the Jets to expose their offense to turnovers. So why might Seattle play a super-conservative offense, especially after the last two games? Well, Rex Ryan can stress blocking schemes in ways that put the onus on the QB to make good pre-snap reads and get out of bad plays. He can draw up some exotic craziness that requires a QB to not execute plays but to execute the playbook. To this point, Carroll has generally gone conservative when faced with that rather than ask Wilson to make many on-field adjustments.

Rex Ryan has to feel like he can win a punt fest. The interesting question is whether Carroll will give him one willingly.

3. Third Quarters are About Coaching and Fourth Quarters are About Depth & Conditioning.

Seattle has done well in the second halves of games because the team is well-coached and pretty deep. If you get past all the bluster and nonsense, I think Ryan's a pretty good coach too. All things equal, I expect Seattle to take a few lumps but to eventually find their sea legs and be the better team at home because Seattle has more good players.

Having said that, with Carp and with K.J. Wright, I think Seattle could play the low score game Rex Ryan wants and feel quite comfortable. Without them, the depth obviously suffers and it shows up in greater variance in performance.