Hawks D vs Pats D (philosophy)

[LT85]

As a european and therefore somewhat of a latecomer to the NFL (Started following NFL & the pats '09) there's a chance that my lack of deep, deep football knowledge will make this post hopeless. Nevertheless, I'll have a go at it.

After the loss to the Seahawks, there was a lot of grief about how the hawks D was superior to ours. This thread is not about that. Or at least not primarily.

Instead this post is about the philosophy behind building a great defense. I focus on the hawks vs the pats, as I think they go about it in different ways.

Let's start with the pats. BB seem to like giving different looks, trying to confuse the opponent. They game plan for specific opponents trying to take away what they do best. This leads to looking for versatile players who can fit in many different looks.

On the other hand, the Seahawks have a very strong identity with fewer suprises to throw at their opponents. The thinking seems to be: 'You know what we're doing, but we are so good at it, that it doesn't matter.' With this strong identity they can look for players that fit into very specific roles.

Now, there are obviously pros and cons to both - and it's not as black and white as I've described it-, but I do wonder if a more clear identity would benefit the patriots D.

A few examples of how that might be the case.

!. The draft / Free agency
Superstars will be superstars. By that I mean that some players are just so good, that they'll succeed in any system. However most players are not superstars, And as we've seen; another mans garbage and so on. By having more limited and defined roles, it would be easier to find specific players with the skills to fit those roles. Take Chung as an example. He's not versatile, but he's a great player, when he plays a specific og defined role. There are a lot more of these players, than players who can do it all.

2. Continuity
A stronger identity would also make it easier to create continuity and create confidence that can lead to an increase in attitude ect. New players might find it easier to adapt and contribute. It might also lead to players becoming really, really goood at the things they need to be good at, instead of being 'just' good at a lot of things, because that's what they need to fit in the pat's D.

I know that a strong identity is not 'the secret' to the Hawks strong D. Sherman, Thomas, Avril ect I assume have something to do with as well. But the point I'm trying to make is this; Maybe the way seahawks go about things make it easier for good players to become great players.

Thoughts?

 

[mihap]

Seahawks play fast, really really fast, and they have some top players at their position.
Earl Thomas is the best, i would like to see how they would play without him. i think that he didnt missed much games.
Richard Sherman is legit. Really really smart.
Both were before 2012 and then they signed Bennet and Avril.
They had bad drafts but lately i think that they got something with Jaran Reed and Frank Clark. Also they added Rubin in FA.
And i agree that they are playing simple so everyone knows their tasks. Maybe to much thinking is wrong with pats players. too bad that we cant see wonderlic results for players.

 

[Gumby]

Good scouts, a couple of excellent defensive drafts coupled with somewhat better picks in each round than Pats and no gotohell stealing every third 1st rnder mean that they can have a Real good, real cheap defense (for a few years).

What you describe as an Identity (constant Philosophy) is what essentially 31 teams in nyjfl do. taking the Flexibility away from BB is same as taking away his game planning ability and therefore his greatness. I dont think you can separate that without firing BB. IMO.

 

[Vindicate]

It's pretty much summed up in your last statement that the Seahawks have a very vanilla defense in that there isn't much complexity to it. Those big names have been playing their part in that system for so long, it relieves pressure to do anything crazy scheme wise.

Contrast the Patriots defense which adjusts to every single game. It'd be interesting to see if the Seahawks D would be as effective if they played out of cover-3 and consistently changed looks every play with disguised blitzes, scheme pressures and changing up assignments, moved Sherman around the field, etc.

Conversely, it would crazy to see BB work with a loaded defense like that. I almost get mad at Carroll for keeping it boring. But hey, it works.

 

[Vindicate]

So my post made me want to pose a question to you guys -

Do you think the Seahawks D, under a mind like Belichick, who would change up their approach each game, could perform any better?

 

[50-yard-line]

Hawks D is a lot more fun to watch.

Also, I like continuity. It frustrates the heck out of me watching potentially really good players walking away at the end of their rookie deals. It wouldn't be hard for me to be a Seattle fan - they're my second favorite team to watch.

That said, BB's philosophy is superior, long-term. Seattle is top-notch right now because they hit on a few unexpected superstars, like Sherman. Carroll's philosophical approach actually got very talented players to take discounts to stick around - they want to be part of LOB.

Because of that, and the bigger contracts, Seattle is more fragile. Without Chancellor, that D isn't the same, for example. Even in the terrible Pats performance that gave Seattle way too much clock on O, the Pats O should have put up 31, but for some goal line blunders and a non-call on the last play.

ps. In a SB rematch, the Pats will beat them.

 

[mihap]

So my post made me want to pose a question to you guys -

Do you think the Seahawks D, under a mind like Belichick, who would change up their approach each game, could perform any better?

NO, worse

 

[Boomer B]

Completely different mind sets to each defense and philosophy.

Belichick is a bit of a chameleon. His over all philosophy is pretty much to be sound in your assignments, and don't give up the big play, keep everything in front of you. Not a ton of freelancing, etc... But as we've seen over the years Belichick will adapt his philosophy to the players that he has at his disposal. When we had Revis and Browner we played a lot more man to man then we typically did. The personnel was there to make the change. He also morphed from a 3-4 to a 4-3. If GM Bill gives head coach Bill the right personnel, as a coach he is one of the best defensive minds ever, but every coach needs the horses to have a top D.

Carrol is also one of the best defensive coaches ever. He put together a group that has elite talent at all levels. They play hard and very fast. They can be had by a great QB like Brady, but it's a hell of a fight and never easy with them. Every inch is earned.

As a fan I'd love to have a D like the 'Hawks, and you have to give credit to Seattle's GM and Carrol for putting that group together. Realistically though, there's only so much $ to go around, and in New England we'd be spread pretty thin if we had to pay that much defensive talent. The Hawks don't have the depth the Pats do, so for them it's key to keep their core group healthy.

Great discussion and debate. Hell, Denver won it all last year without barely anything from the O.

 

[LT85]

Some great responses.

I agree that BB is set in his ways and I'm not complaining about having the goat coach.

That being said, it seems that it's widely accepted that BB is a great defensive coach, but when was the last time the pats had a dominant d? And why does a great defensive coach, who's also gm, not build a greater defense? My initial thought was that maybe they make things more complicated than they have to be.

Don't get me wrong, I feel good about this team. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how things work.

 

[jmt57]

To add on to what @Boomer B said:

Taking Seattle out of the conversation, which philosophy does one prefer?

An aggressive, attacking one-gap defense which is likely to make more big defensive plays, but at the same time be vulnerable to giving up more big plays?

Or a two-gap defense focused on setting the edge, gap integrity, and willing to make fewer big splash plays in exchange for surrendering fewer long plays?


Belichick believes that forcing an opponent to maintain a long drive will lead to a mistake which the defense can exploit, leading to a punt, turnover, settling for a field goal, etc. Other coaches believe the opposite approach is better.

It is not dissimilar to BB's cap management approach of trying to spread cap dollars throughout the roster, while others feel the path to success is with as many star playmakers as possible. Straying a bit further from the original topic, is it better to have a backup who is a superior position player, or a backup who is a superior special teams player.


Back to the original question. Seattle has thirteen players with a cap figure of $3 million or more. Of those 13 players, only three are on offense: QB Russell Wilson, TE Jimmy Graham and WR Doug Baldwin.

Conversely six of the top eight Patriot cap figures (as well as 7 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 12 cap numbers) are on the offensive side of the ball.

With that in mind perhaps it is not a question about comparing defensive game plans and schemes, but one of comparing how to build and manage a roster. With the financial disparities mentioned above one should expect Seattle to have the superior defense, and for the Patriots to possess the better offense.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Some great responses.

I agree that BB is set in his ways and I'm not complaining about having the goat coach.

That being said, it seems that it's widely accepted that BB is a great defensive coach, but when was the last time the pats had a dominant d? And why does a great defensive coach, who's also gm, not build a greater defense? My initial thought was that maybe they make things more complicated than they have to be.

Don't get me wrong, I feel good about this team. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how things work.

They are also paying Brady & Co. more and have had to churn through good players on "D" to avoid cap issues. I would have loved to keep Big Vince and Chandler Jones, but those guys had too big a cap hit coming up.

With Vince, I think that is the most regrettable. He provided veteran leadership that doesn't seem to be there right now. I look at Vince and Teddy Bruschi as the same type - lovable to the lockerroom, but also tough and intense when it counts. Who on d has that charisma level right now? No one and it has led to them lacking a cohesive vibe. I can see Malcolm Butler as this type in a year or two - he has the swagger, but I'm not sure how he gets along with teammates.

 

[jmt57]

Some great responses.

I agree that BB is set in his ways and I'm not complaining about having the goat coach.

That being said, it seems that it's widely accepted that BB is a great defensive coach, but when was the last time the pats had a dominant d? And why does a great defensive coach, who's also gm, not build a greater defense? My initial thought was that maybe they make things more complicated than they have to be.

Don't get me wrong, I feel good about this team. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how things work.

I think that what happened was that Belichick saw the Competition Committee tweaking rules to so favor offenses and specifically the passing game that he changed his philosophy from one of defense first and foremost, to more of a focus on the offense and scoring. Many (including myself) believe that those rule changes and 'point of emphasis' directives given to officials were directly in response to Belichick's winning ways with great defenses stopping teams like the Rams and Colts in the early 2000s. Rather than fighting a losing battle Belichick adapted, staying one step ahead of the competition.

The guy is playing chess while his colleagues are playing checkers.

 

[LT85]

They are also paying Brady & Co. more and have had to churn through good players on "D" to avoid cap issues. I would have loved to keep Big Vince and Chandler Jones, but those guys had to big a cap hit coming up.

With Vince, I think that is the most regrettable. He provided veteran leadership that doesn't seem to be there right now. I look at Vince and Teddy Bruschi as the same type - lovable to the lockerroom, but also tough and intense when it counts. Who on d has that charisma level right now? No one and it has led to them lacking a cohesive vibe. I can see Malcolm Butler as this type in a year or two - he has the swagger, but I'm not sure how he gets along with teammates.

I agree butler could become a leader. another reason they should sign him long term. I think hightower is a leader type as well. at least on the field.

 

[LT85]

I think that what happened was that Belichick saw the Competition Committee tweaking rules to so favor offenses and specifically the passing game that he changed his philosophy from one of defense first and foremost, to more of a focus on the offense and scoring. Many (including myself) believe that those rule changes and 'point of emphasis' directives given to officials were directly in response to Belichick's winning ways with great defenses stopping teams like the Rams and Colts in the early 2000s. Rather than fighting a losing battle Belichick adapted, staying one step ahead of the competition.

The guy is playing chess while his colleagues are playing checkers.

Again, good point. To play devils advocate; in some sense he was wrong. giants, hawks, donkeys.

To be fair to him, things could have been different this year had things worked out as he had hope with Jones, Collins and easly. Add those guys with their head straight and this d could be special.

 

[patfanken]

This is a philosophical issue that has been around as long as I've been involved with coaching....and that goes back to the late 60's. One school says you are better off not moving your players around much play to play, week to week. The thought behind this is that your players will react to what they see better and faster if they are seeing it from the same place all the time. Those of this school of though believe that what you get in better execution is more valuable than the negative of having the offense know where your players are likely to line up. Tony Dungy was a good example of this strategy, as is Pete Carrol, though to a lesser degree.

BB is on the other side of the fence. He believes if a player's techniques remain the same, it doesn't matter where he lines up, and the value of the offense not knowing where everyone is going to be, is greater than the comfort a player gets from lining up in the same place most of the time.

There is no right or wrong answer to this philosophical question. It's more a matter of what you are comfortable with and how skilled and dedicated your players are. In HS, most coaches tend toward the comfort side because the players are young and inexperienced.

Myself, I was torn between the 2. I always moved around my front 7 every week, depending on the personnel match ups along the offensive line and the kind of offense the other team was running. For example I would always try and identify the opponents best OLman, and match him up with my focal point DLman. This was usually some very tough undersized kid who had a quick step. I would align him up head up on ther best guy and on the snap of the ball, he'd either hit the gap on one side or the other, or tackle his outside knee, depending on the call. It would frustrate the hell out of him, as you would imagine. That way I effectively neutralized their best lineman, while my best athletes played against better match ups. So while the front seven would change alignments week to week, their keys and responsibilites always remaind the same.

On the other hand, I played a four deep secondary in zone 90% of the time, that rotated to various keys and formations. They rarely ever changed their alignment. That's how important I felt it was that they felt comfortable with their view of the game. DISCLAIMER - it should be noted that when I coached, things like spread passing attacks at the HS level were rare. Actually non-existent.

So I can understand where Pete Carroll is coming from, but when you have the continuity factor that BB has, he thinks he has the system and language package that allows him to move his guys around week to week with minimal disruption. But you can see why it often takes more time for a guy in his system to "get it" than in some other systems.

I think the reason this secondary plays so well as a unit is that the great majority of it has been playing in the system for 3 or 4 years now. The front seven is playing a LOT of new guys is their first or 2nd year's with the team. Too many if you ask me. But that is why the defense tends to get better as the year goes on, even in those bad years.


BTW- I sometimes wonder if the offense wouldn't be even better if the receivers ran DEFINED routes, and there were no post snap options. That would eliminate any of those 'miscommunications' issues between the QB and his receivers. And what you lose in having those options, you might gain more with improved execution. Plus your players don't need to be mensa members and they can get up and running that much faster.

 

[fightingirish595]

And at the end of the day, you have to have the players. otherwise, it does not work. Although good coaches can mask deficiencies to a degree

 

[VrabelJr]

The Seahawks:

- play zone
- have very good all around LBs
- have good and very good DEs
- have a deep rotation of DTs
- make it very hard to complete passes in the middle of the field
- communicate extremely well (this is why their zone works)