Read on Twitter
After Bruce Irvin left the game with 4:01 left, Seattle completely stopped getting any pass rush. New England called 15 straight, non-goalline, passing plays as they easily marched down the field, twice.
Irvin is a good pass rusher but is he really that influential?
Irvin is a good pass rusher but is he really that influential?
As a vet, he brings a lot to the team, but not really elite pass-rushing moves. Through 2 games, he had 5 tackles and 0 sacks despite playing <80% of snaps.
So if the Seahawks weren& #39;t missing his rushing ability, what changed with him off the field?
So if the Seahawks weren& #39;t missing his rushing ability, what changed with him off the field?
IMO, what changed was how often we called Tite, or at least Tighter, fronts. Through 3 quarters, Seattle lined up >2 DLinemen as 4-techs or tighter on about 1/2 of all snaps, to great effect: NE averaged ~0.5 EPA/snap less whenever they did.
With Irvin gone, Norton felt less confident playing Tite and having an OLB on the line rushing. Unfortunately, none of his DLine are very effective from the edge either and this led to ineffective rushes. Even when the front 4 did get through on their own, Cam easily escaped.
So the Tite front generated more effective pressures, more of them, and with fewer blitzers. At the start of the 4th, it was called 5 times in a row as Seattle forced New England& #39;s final punt of the game.
So why did they go away from it?
So why did they go away from it?
