Next Day Thread: WFT vs. Seahawks

[Going Commando]

15 minutes ago, Burgold said:

This is a strange take.

 

Especially at the beginning of the year, everyone was surprised at how well the offense was doing. Even when they couldn't score, they were moving well between the 20's. It was pretty much the inverse of what we expected coming into the season. The D was awful and it wasn't because the O wasn't lifting its weight.

 

It's not strange, just a statement of fact.  The offense was 30th in the NFL in time of possession over the first four games.  They were awful, people just didn't notice it in their zeal to crucify the defense.  They started sustaining drives better over the next four games, with the exception of the KC game.  Turnovers and an inability to run the ball were the primary issues, and the injuries to Gibson/Thomas/Scherff/Flowers/Roullier/Cosmi were drivers of that.  But it's really just been the last three games where they seemed to have gotten healthy and fixed those issues and transformed into a strangling ball control offense that is committed to the run.  That's what has taken the pressure off the defense, and lo and behold, they've been playing far better as a direct result of the offense actually pulling their weight.

[KDawg]

20 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Not just the secondary but the linebackers have been awful too.  And it wasn't just the big plays they were responsible for giving up but the constant third down conversions.  Teams came into the year knowing they were going to have to nickel and dime us mostly so they did it and it worked extremely well because our back seven couldn't hold up.

 

I get that Chase and Montez didn't play as well as we hoped coming into the year given we hoped.for absolute dominance, but they objectively did play well.  They absolutely did.  Montez has a 74.4 overall PFF grade and Chase has a 75.5 grade and both of those are good scores.  Those aren't far off Terry McLaurin's overall score of 78.8 for this season, for comparison.  The way they've been scapegoated on this board has been absurd.  How about we focus on the guys scoring in the 30s and 40s and 50s throughout our back seven to identify the actual problems?

 

You don't have to sell me on the backers. When it's coverage related I consider them part of the secondary. When it's run stuff they are the defensive front. So I include them in the secondary stuff.

 

I don't put the stock in the PFF numbers. When I watch the game I do it as someone that coaches a varsity defense. The way Young and Sweat play is not a symbiotic relationship that coincides with the defense. They are BOTH doing the same thing and that is killer. Their deep rush lanes open lanes. They allow the QB to get out of the pocket and allow the receivers to play backyard ball, which doesn't help the secondary (and they need all the help they can get). Quarterbacks are struggling to break the pocket now because the ends are home. The interior DL is collapsing the pocket from within and the QBs are being forced to get rid of the ball instead of buying time with their legs. That was part of the reason we were so bad on third down conversions and why we are getting better with it now. Even if the QB didn't break the pocket, those deep rush lanes allowed the QB green grass to just step up into.

 

It is a major factor.

 

Sweat and Young are both excellent players who make the most of the opportunities they have when they are in position. I don't doubt Young's ability to make a giant play when he finds himself near the ball. If he's there he's going to make something happen. Zero doubt. It's the being there that is my concern with him. 

25 minutes ago, Burgold said:

This is a strange take.

 

Especially at the beginning of the year, everyone was surprised at how well the offense was doing. Even when they couldn't score, they were moving well between the 20's. It was pretty much the inverse of what we expected coming into the season. The D was awful and it wasn't because the O wasn't lifting its weight.

 

If the offense can't sustain drives the defense is on the field a lot more which allows for more opportunities at explosives and wears the defense down. It's symbiotic. He's right that the offense didn't help. Having said that, the defense also broke down in every conceivable way when it was time to get the opposing O off the field. I blame the D more than the O for most of those circumstances, but the offense didn't help. 

 

We were a bad team for awhile. The O was better than the D. But neither were performing anywhere near where we needed.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's not strange, just a statement of fact.  The offense was 30th in the NFL in time of possession over the first four games.  They were awful, people just didn't notice it in their zeal to crucify the defense.  They started sustaining drives better over the next four games, with the exception of the KC game.  Turnovers and an inability to run the ball were the primary issues, and the injuries to Gibson/Thomas/Scherff/Flowers/Roullier/Cosmi were drivers of that.  But it's really just been the last three games where they seemed to have gotten healthy and fixed those issues and transformed into a strangling ball control offense that is committed to the run.  That's what has taken the pressure off the defense, and lo and behold, they've been playing far better as a direct result of the offense actually pulling their weight.

Time of possession is not a useful stat if our D never got their O off the field.

 

Game number 1: Washington was 14/21 Passing for a paltry 135 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions, but they ran for 126 yards and averaged for 4.6 yard average

Game number 2:  Washington was 34/46 for 336 yards with two touchdowns and one INT. 87 yards rushing for 4.1 yard average

Game number 3: Washington was 14/24 for  212 with two TDs and two INTs. 85 yards rushing for 3.2 average (Yeah, we weren't great against the Bills)

Game number 4: Washington was 22/33 for 290 yards with 3 TDs and 0 INTs. 122 yards rushing for a 4.3 yard average.

 

The offense was not the problem.

[Koolblue13]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

 

The offense was not the problem.

You're being obtuse. What was the TOP in those games. The offense did the defense no favors early in the year. It was A problem. 

[Burgold]

14 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

You're being obtuse. What was the TOP in those games. The offense did the defense no favors early in the year. It was A problem. 

Quite the opposite. The time of possession is an illusion. I've demonstrated that when our O had the ball they were efficient. At least average if not above average with it. They had drives. They extended drives. For example, in the Atlanta game, the Falcons only had two punt returns (2 punts total). The Chargers only had one punt return (3 punts). The problem was they never got the ball. The D never forced a punt or turnover. Giants were the worst early game with 4 punts and that's the one we won.

 

So, in those three games, I could look at more if you want. the Offense was forced to punt around 3 times a game. Not bad at all. More, as shown in the post above, the offense wasn't turning over the ball a ton. So, it was the D not getting off the field. The O was not the problem. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Burgold

[Warhead36]

The offense wasn't great early but they carried the Giants and Falcons wins. The defense didn't really pull any sort of weight at all until maybe the Broncos game.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Quite the opposite. The time of possession is an illusion. I've demonstrated that when our O had the ball they were efficient. At least average if not above average with it. They had drives. They extended drives. For example, in the Atlanta game, the Falcons only had two punt returns (2 punts total). The Chargers only had one punt return (3 punts). The problem was they never got the ball. The D never forced a punt or turnover. 

 

So, in those three games, I could look at more if you want. the Offense was forced to punt less than 3 times a game. Not bad at all. More, as shown in the post above, the offense wasn't turning over the ball a ton. So, it was the D not getting off the field. The O was not the problem. 

 

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The offense wasn't great early but they carried the Giants and Falcons wins. The defense didn't really pull any sort of weight at all until maybe the Broncos game.

 

That's where I stand, Warhead. The offense didn't help. They didn't score points and relieve pressure. They didn't convert in pivotal moments on third downs. But they weren't the BIGGER problem. The defense was.

[Warhead36]

You also have to factor in the resources invested into the offense vs. the defense.

 

The offense has one first round pick on it and hes an injury prone G(albeit a great one). The QB is an UDFA who was a backup...in the XFL. The RB is a college WR. The TE is a college QB. The two big FA acquisitions didn't play at all early on save for like one quarter from FItzpatrick. All things considered, the offense was basically what you expect it should have been given the talent level early.

 

The defense has had lots of resources invested into it in terms of both draft picks and FA signings. They were supposed to be GREAT yet they were the reason we were losing games early.

[Koolblue13]

I keep seeing finger-pointing to "thee" problem, when people say anything else was "A" problem. 

 

The secondary sucked. The Dline wasn't playing great. The offense was doing them no favors.

[redskinss]

The Seattle defense Monday is what a good defense looks like with an atrocious offense. 

Our offense wasn't doing our defense any favors early on in the season but it sure as hell wasn't the major contributing factor to how bad they were.

[Warhead36]

7 minutes ago, redskinss said:

The Seattle defense Monday is what a good defense looks like with an atrocious offense. 

Our offense wasn't doing our defense any favors early on in the season but it sure as hell wasn't the major contributing factor to how bad they were.

Seattle's defense isn't very good though. We let em off the hook with super conservative playcalling. They got lit up by Colt freaking McCoy.

[redskinss]

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Seattle's defense isn't very good though. We let em off the hook with super conservative playcalling. They got lit up by Colt freaking McCoy.

I'm just saying the two help each other out but aren't mutually exclusive, you absolutely can play one very well while playing the other poorly. 

Our defense was God awful to start this season and even if we had the greatest show on turf they would have looked bad but maybe slightly better.

Edited December 1, 2021 by redskinss

[skinny21]

From my layman POV:

The offense has improved because 1) Turner isn’t as pass happy, has leaned into the strength of the oline (run blocking), and has used more PA passing, 2) Heinicke has gotten far more comfortable - he’s not pressing as much, better understands how to translate the system onto the field and is setting his feet more often (improving his accuracy) and 3) the defensive improvement has helped - Heinicke doesn’t feel he needs to ‘keep pace’ with opposing offenses, and the D has given the O more opportunities with the ball.

 

The defense has improved because guys are, for the most part, playing sound football.  They’re playing their assignments - the back 7 understands their coverages better, while the front 7 are staying in their rush lanes and hitting their gaps in run D.  Guys are starting to trust each other.  Yes, their were big time blown coverages, just as there were times our DEs were leaving huge gaps for qbs to step or run into, but I don’t think those were the fundamental issues that caused the defensive woes.  The biggest personnel changes helping with the defensive improvement were (IMO) Fuller moving outside, Curl taking over at SS, and Collins manning the BN role.  Obviously moving towards a ball control offense has helped defensive players stay fresh, though one could argue it’s the improved 3rd down conversion rate and scoring that’s been the bigger help.

[zCommander]

40 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Seattle's defense isn't very good though. We let em off the hook with super conservative playcalling. They got lit up by Colt freaking McCoy.

 

We had like what, three 3 and 1 stops and the Thomas TD overturned. We could had more points on the board. But, Turner play calling was about running the ball and time of possession. They are trying to establish a new identity after the bye. And it is working. Style points don't matter as long as you can grind it out and take time off the clock and win. We had the ball for 42 minutes. That is pretty impressive. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Listening to Rivera yesterday, he said that one big pass play was about a miscommunication yesterday, he didn't say who was to blame on the miscommunication.  But I know from other reporters that they've heard that Jackson is often the culprit of the communication mishaps.  The good news is Rivera said that was the only miscommunication in that game and that the communication has improved greatly in the backend.  

 

Jackson had one of his better games yesterday.   Among other things he was leading the league for a spell in penalities so that seems to have settled down, too.  If he gets his stuff together which he might be combined with Fuller playing well and Johnson emerging in the slot -- that might be making all the difference.   Our secondary earlish this season was not just the worst in the NFL but it was also nationally mocked -- I recall one national analyist talking about how the who has who covered -- I thought it was you, no I thought you got him as a WFT thing.

I do think that there is also something to a learning curve for WJIII because (from what I understand) he played a lot more man in Cincy.  From a scheme perspective, playing man is a little easier.  You guard the guy in front of you.  (I know there's more to it than that, but you don't have to worry about passing guys off, guys flooding the zone, who's got who, etc.  You get your man, and you stick with him, at least in it's simplest terms.)

 

So, I figure there was a pretty big adjustment to what he's asked to do here.  Understanding what your responsibility is in the defense, where your help is, what you do if 2 guys enter your zone, when you pass a guy off, what to do when nobody enters your zone, etc.  There's just more to understand.  And I get that.  

 

Also, McCain was new to the defense.  I think he has always been the guy calling out the secondary calls, all season.  So you had a guy who's new to the system calling signals to a guy who hadn't really played in this type of a scheme before.  What could possibly go wrong?  Toss in Collins, who was being played out of position, and it was just a mess.  

 

And one thing on the penalties for WJIII: a lot of penalties come because you are out of position.  A lot of times you're out of position because you're thinking and not just reacting.  So the more comfortable you get, the quicker you play, and the less penalties you have.  Unless, you're physically limited, in which case you commit penalties because guys are just running past you.  WJIII is not physically limited.  So I think it's probably the former.  

 

Things seem to have settled down a bit because McCain and WJIII both have 11 games in the system now. Also, I think they've simplified things: Collins is now up in the box, Fuller, WJIII, Curl and McCain are the secondary in base, and Danny Johnson comes in for nickel.  Everybody knows their role.  I think earlier they were trying to balance Collins/Curl/St. Juice, and there were just too many moving pieces. It's the down side of having position flex.  You can flex yourself into a pretzel.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

18 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

In fairness, they did think they had lightning in the bottle with Juice looking ready to contribute while flashing top end potential.  It makes sense if that happens, but he's not ready to take over from Fuller.  Fuller knows a lot more about everything that's going on, and reacts to plays in his area well.  Juice doesn't have that yet.

I'm good with that, and I think St. Juice is going to be a player, and a good one, for a long time.  (I hope I'm not wrong about this.)

 

I don't think it was one move in particular that screwed things up, I think it was the combination of everything.  There was literally not 1 player in the secondary who started the season with the same role they ended the last one with :

 

Fuller was 60% slot instead of being outside

McCain was new (new FS)

St. Juice was new (New Outside CB)

WJIII was new (New Outside CB)

Curl was delegated to backup, and then they had him playing more of the "buffalo nickel" than safety.  (new role)

Collins came in from IR to be the SS (Kindof new SS)

 

Everything changed, even for the people who were hear.

 

They did something kindof similar on the OL, but it worked because you had 2 guys (who were the leaders of the group) in their same spots (Rouiller and Scherff).  So not EVERYBODY flipped around:  

 

New LT

New LG,

Same Center

Same RG

New RT

 

Also, their depth (I think all of it?) had been here for a year, especially Leno and Schweitzer (and Charles for that matter) was already here with their roles pretty well defined.

 

I think for the secondary if they had tinkered a little bit but not completely rebuilt it (when it wasn't really broken), there would have been less growing pains.  BUT they needed a new FS, and they had to either sign or replace Darby.  So some of it was going to happen....

 

 

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, zskins said:

 

We had like what, three 3 and 1 stops and the Thomas TD overturned. We could had more points on the board. But, Turner play calling was about running the ball and time of possession. They are trying to establish a new identity after the bye. And it is working. Style points don't matter as long as you can grind it out and take time off the clock and win. We had the ball for 42 minutes. That is pretty impressive. 

An identity of scoring 17 points isn't good enough.

[zCommander]

14 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

An identity of scoring 17 points isn't good enough.

 

That is why i prefaced it with: three 3 and 1 stops and the Thomas TD overturned. We could have had 30 points easily if those two things didn't happen. Hopefully Turner and the boys will learn from that. 

 

[skinny21]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

An identity of scoring 17 points isn't good enough.

You’re not wrong, but it was good enough for that game… and we averaged 28 pts the previous two games.

 

I think it’s understandable if one were to look back on the scoring drought vs KC/GB/DEN and see this 17 pt game as an extension of those games.  I think context matters though, and the context (IMO) has shifted a bit after these past 3 games.  Against GB, Taylor’s premature dive cost us 7 - that’s not something that you’d expect to ever happen again in the same circumstances.  Terry dropped a relatively easy td as well.  So we’re looking at 24 pts vs 10.  Not arguing we would have won, just that we had some atrocious ‘luck’ that made our O look woeful.  Vs Denver, the 2 blocked kicks meant TH needed to score a td when we were at their 20 with just over a minute to go.  Otherwise, we’re kicking a FG to go up 19-17.  Again, not arguing we would have won (odds would have been in our favor though), but 19 looks a whole lot better than 10.  And obviously, against SEA, the overturned td, lack of a kicker, and ultra conservative 3rd downs left points on the board (again).

 

Point being, I can understand the feeling we need to score more, but I can also look at the points left on the field and believe we’re better than the scoreboard has indicated.  The defensive turnaround, the lopsided TOP these past 3 games, the numerous drives into scoring position per game the past 5 weeks all support that view.  We’ll see what these next several games bring.  I’m cautiously optimistic… but not totally confident, because while the final score is all that matters, putting up well below league average points in 3 of the past 5 games is still a concern (to your point).

Edited December 1, 2021 by skinny21

[FuriousD]

19 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Bates is a big reason our run game is finally working. It's been far too long that we've gone without a quality blocking TE 

Bates has decent wheels too..  He shows up on the replay of the blocked kick and run-back.  Reyes is trailing the run-back but not gaining ground, (and I though he was supposed to have decent speed), but Bates comes in late from out of shot, moving at a good clip and clearly gaining ground.  It's good to see him on the field finally and making plays...

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, FuriousD said:

Bates has decent wheels too..  He shows up on the replay of the blocked kick and run-back.  Reyes is trailing the run-back but not gaining ground, (and I though he was supposed to have decent speed), but Bates comes in late from out of shot, moving at a good clip and clearly gaining ground.  It's good to see him on the field finally and making plays...

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/1466164331461197828?s=20

[El Mexican]

The "bad luck" or O has struggled with is no match for the terrible situation we've had in the kicking game.

 

That's a whole lotta points being left on the table or, even worse, blocked and returned for points AGAINST us.

 

A good kicker should average about 100 points a season, counting FGs and EXP, right?

 

We are FAR from that goal and that's costing us bigtime.

Edited December 1, 2021 by El Mexican

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, FuriousD said:

Bates has decent wheels too..  He shows up on the replay of the blocked kick and run-back.  Reyes is trailing the run-back but not gaining ground, (and I though he was supposed to have decent speed), but Bates comes in late from out of shot, moving at a good clip and clearly gaining ground.  It's good to see him on the field finally and making plays...

I want sure who I was watching but I was thinking that somebody should be gaining ground on a DL. But I think they were shocked and not running as hard. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[FuriousD]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

I want sure who I was watching but I was thinking that somebody should be gaining ground on a DL. But I think they were shocked and not running as hard. 

Pretty sure that's Reyes your thinking about.  It occurred to me that he wasn't all-in as the DL had a head-start and the goal line was fast approaching but that's an issue too!   Bates, to his credit was high effort and gonna give the DL a run for his money...  might have caught the guy had he been in Reyes position initially.