How about a position by position breakdown of why the defense is struggling?

[Ring 6]

I know what "Bend but don't break" means, thanks. You seem to be confusing a general philosophy (GTFB, avoid huge plays) with a game plan application (stay passive, do almost nothing to put pressure on the opponent). And, on that note, I'm through discussing this with you.

No I am saying the philosophy has been consistent and the execution has been different and that is a fact.

 

[Ring 6]

Good god. What are you talking abou

Good god what are you talking about. Playing an aggressive style doesn't mean blitzing. Seattle plays an aggressive attcking style of defense and they are on track to have the best scoring defense for the 5th year in a row. Who cares about Rex Ryan?? He sucks as a head coach. Most of the top defenses play a more aggressive style of D.

Seattle does not play an aggressive attacking style of defense. Seattle is loaded with talent on defense.

You are confusing aggressive with successful. It seems you look at a good play and call it aggressive therefore decide aggressive is good.

 

[skinnydog]

Seattle does not play an aggressive attacking style of defense. Seattle is loaded with talent on defense.

You are confusing aggressive with successful. It seems you look at a good play and call it aggressive therefore decide aggressive is good.

Uh, Seattles D line attacks the line of scrimmage with regularity. They go after the other offense.

Never mind, your right. Seattle is super passive
On defense

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, Seattles D line attacks the line of scrimmage with regularity. They go after the other offense.

Never mind, your right. Seattle is super passive
On defense

Sorry you don't like being wrong but Seattle is not what you think it is.
Seattle does what they do which is a ton of zone and expecting their DL to win one in one battles and having lbs that can run.

 

[PP2]

But you probably wouldn't have done that if the author deemed that to be bend not break. The patriots were going against the better teams in the league. Of course their numbers in the post season aren't going to look as good compared to regular season games. That author loses all credibility using that as his argument

Here is an excellent writeup of Belichick's defense by Chris Brown who I think is the best writer in football, bar none.

The Great Defender

Which truthfully points out that BB does not adhere to any one given philosophy consistently. His strategy changes every week, and is suited to specific matchups, to specific QBs.

But if there is anything about BB's defenses throughout the years that could be called, or be seen as consistent, it's the BBDB philosophy. He never has and never likes to give up the big play and will always play that way, no matter the scheme or strategy, or the team.

This is reflected in the average to above average number of yards allowed.

The top three games with the least amount of yards allowed in a superbowl are between 100-150 yards, and the numbers I posted (or stole ) aren't anywhere near that, for comparison's sake.

 

[PP2]

Uh, Seattles D line attacks the line of scrimmage with regularity. They go after the other offense.

Never mind, your right. Seattle is super passive
On defense

Since 2012, Seattle has in fact blitzed (rushing 5 or more) on only 25% of dropbacks, which puts them in the 6th lowest %, league-wide.

 

[hodgey]

What doesn't seem logical to me is when you have a prolific offense as capable as any in the league why you would be afraid to attach on defense. I totally understand being terrified of the big play if you have an offense that cant score. I would take my chances playing a pressure scheme and risk the big play against for the likelihood of turnovers for. I would start by being less timid at the safety positions!! Rarely are we in a position at deep safety to make a play on the ball or receiver until after a long completion.

 

[Ring 6]

Since 2012, Seattle has in fact blitzed (rushing 5 or more) on only 25% of dropbacks, which puts them in the 6th lowest %, league-wide.

Where did you get that stat?

 

[skinnydog]

Since 2012, Seattle has in fact blitzed (rushing 5 or more) on only 25% of dropbacks, which puts them in the 6th lowest %, league-wide.

Blitzing and attacking the line of scrimmage are not the same thing.

 

[fightingirish595]

Since 2012, Seattle has in fact blitzed (rushing 5 or more) on only 25% of dropbacks, which puts them in the 6th lowest %, league-wide.

Yet they have been great at pressuring the quarterback since that time

 

[PP2]

Blitzing and attacking the line of scrimmage are not the same thing.

Then what is "attacking the LOS?" by your definition?

 

[PP2]

Yet they have been great at pressuring the quarterback since that time

When they rush an extra man is when they excel at takeaways or pressures. Doesn't mean they do it all the time, but when they do, it really has an effect.

 

[fightingirish595]

When they rush an extra man is when they excel at takeaways or pressures. Doesn't mean they do it all the time, but when they do, it really has an effect.

Really because when I watch Seattle, especially in 2013, They really thrived at harassing quarterbacks by only rushing 4

 

[PP2]

Really because when I watch Seattle, especially in 2013, They really thrived at harassing quarterbacks by only rushing 4

If that was all they did, they'd become quite predictable, and that would be an easy thing to overcome by going empty and stressing their backers.

 

[fightingirish595]

If that was all they did, they'd become quite predictable, and that would be an easy thing to overcome by going empty and stressing their backers.

which opens up a free runner if you choose to be agressive. If you go empty with your tight end and running back out there, there probably going to keep their linebackers out there. (some of the best in the league in coverage) or There obviously going to bring in more DBs To counter that if you have 4 or 5 on the field

 

[skinnydog]

Then what is "attacking the LOS?" by your definition?

The Seahawks seem to prioritize getting into the backfield and disrupting running plays or getting after the QB. That seems to be their baseline d-line philosophy. The play a lot of 1 gap technique in which the d-lineman has responsibility for the gap in front of him and it results in a more penetrating style whether run or pass. The mix thing up but basically a lot of 4-3 under I think it is called. In contrast the Pats seem to play a lot more 2 gap technique. It's a read and react style that can also be effective, but it not what I would call an aggressive style of play. With a 1 gap style you are basically attacking at the snap and with a 2 gap there is a necessary hesitation and often you job is not to penetrate at all but to tie op the blocker in front of you and allow a linebacker to read the play and flow to the ball. Either way by the time you read that it's a pass then you are already tied up with a blocker so the the pressure on the QB takes longer to develop.

I thought the pats were moving in the direction of a 4-3 penetrating style a couple of years ago and thought the Easley pick was representative of a shift in philosophy. I think they have shifted back to a more read and react base style of defense.

 

[fightingirish595]

The Seahawks seem to prioritize getting into the backfield and disrupting running plays or getting after the QB. That seems to be their baseline d-line philosophy. The play a lot of 1 gap technique in which the d-lineman has responsibility for the gap in front of him and it results in a more penetrating style whether run or pass. The mix thing up but basically a lot of 4-3 under I think it is called. In contrast the Pats seem to play a lot more 2 gap technique. It's a read and react style that can also be effective, but it not what I would call an aggressive style of play. With a 1 gap style you are basically attacking at the snap and with a 2 gap there is a necessary hesitation and often you job is not to penetrate at all but to tie op the blocker in front of you and allow a linebacker to read the play and flow to the ball. Either way by the time you read that it's a pass then you are already tied up with a blocker so the the pressure on the QB takes longer to develop.

I thought the pats were moving in the direction of a 4-3 penetrating style a couple of years ago and thought the Easley pick was representative of a shift in philosophy. I think they have shifted back to a more read and react base style of defense.

Yeah Ive heard Pete and Dan Quinn discuss what they do. Its a 4-3 under with a lot of 3-4 elements but yes its one gap

 

[skinnydog]

Yeah Ive heard Pete and Dan Quinn discuss what they do. Its a 4-3 under with a lot of 3-4 elements but yes its one gap

Yeah, I've heard some analysis indicating they sometimes look like a 3-4 but they're really a 4-3. I'm not sure it matters what it's called, but at its core a 1 gap scheme.

 

[fightingirish595]

Yeah, I've heard some analysis indicating they sometimes look like a 3-4 but they're really a 4-3. I'm not sure it matters what it's called, but at its core a 1 gap scheme.

Yes, but I should point out there 3-4 elements do include 2 gap principles

 

[skinnydog]

Yes, but I should point out there 3-4 elements do include 2 gap principles

Yes, I get that it's just their predominant 1 gap scheme explains why the are an attacking style of defense overall as compared to a 2 gap scheme even without blitzing.