Here is the Seahawks-Giants Breakdown.
Power G once again works well for our offense. We also ran some zone running plays. I remember reading Corey Williams's comments on our running game, and thinking where did he pull zone running out of. Well he is right, we ran some zone in this past game, but not nearly enough to call us a zone running team. I think we run MANY different running concepts in our system. One new concept I saw was End TRAP out of a bunch right formation, where the bunch was Mathews, Boss, and Smith. We also run it with Madison H. as the inside most "WR" in bunch. So gradually we are seeing more and more new plays being used, which is a great thing.
One really important note was I thought the Hawks sucked at matching personnel with ours. When we had 3 wrs out there, they didn't go into the nickel like most teams do when I breakdown games. They are very adamant in staying in a 4-3 base defense, and either putting Grant on the WR or even sometimes Julian Peterson, as was the case, when Smith made that catch and lost his shoe. Why on earth would you put Peterson on a WR? As WB coach told me, Peterson is their joker. They line him up everywhere and even saw him as their DE on one play. Actually it was the Manningham WR screen. But I saw alot of C1 Man free coverage, C3, and ALOT of Cover 2 soft which could be disguised as C4. So it was either 1 of the 2 coverages. But they gave us a big time cushion.
Seattle is what it is, a very finesse team that is the antithesis of the packer's style of play at their CB position. The Packer's run alot of press coverage and will jam you at the LOS, and try re-routing you from the before you get the stem of your route. This Seattle team is not really a physical team. They never, from what I remember, attack the WRs.
Overall great win!
I've never seen a 3-4 team do it, but I might have just missed it if it occurred.
A lot of 4-3 teams have Will LBers that are closer to safeties in physical traits than they are to a SAM or Mike.
If the offense shows a heavy tendency to run on a certain down and distance, but they come out 3 wide, some DCs will leave their base in and take their chances.
BABS,
I went to North, but I coached D3 college last year, TEs.
I think it's very risky but I'd try it once, but I know I'd be switching it up rather than doing the same thing every time.
I never thought Mora was the brightest bulb in the pack and this is evidence that I might be right.
Since the Hawks kept their base D on the field it meant Peterson or a safety, usually Grant was on Smith or the slot guy. So that means they basically ran 2 coverages. Zone.. Cover 3, or man.. cover 1 man free. Now when they had 2 safties back, it was C2 soft, or they disguised it as a C4, and went back and forth. So either way there were 4 coverages they ran and seemed to recycle alot. I am no expert but you do that against pro coaches and it's damn risky. You do that against a very good offensive coaching staff, and you are going to get your ass handed to you. That's how I saw it. They ran C1, C3, C2 soft, or C4, and some regular C2 man So around 5 coverages they ran alot, with some other stuff tossed in, like Cover 0 and Cover 5. You do that alot, our coaches will run those coverage beaters all day vs you.
As far as the defense goes I don't think we give up too much with Johnson in there. He has been equally good vs the run and pass. You can't ask for more.