Is the "Legion of Boom" approach obsolete?

[Wes21]

One thing to remember about the Legion of Boom was they benefitted from some financial quirks that were unique to those Super Bowl years.  Everyone knows about Wilson being cheap along with the other guys.  But they were even able to grab NFL talent via free agency for relatively cheap.  The 2013 season was an odd year for free agency and players and agents accused the teams of collusion to suppress salaries.  Some good talent took 1-2 year prove it deals to be ready to hit the market again in 2014 and 2015.  One of those players was DE Cliff Avril.  After turning down an offer from the Lions, he didn't get the offer he was looking for in free agency...so he signed on with the Seahawks for 2 years at $7.5M per year.  That's about half of what he was asking for, and less than he made the previous year with the Lions.  Cliff was a fireball of a pass rusher, but he stunk against the run.  The Seahawks were able to pay him like the part time player that he was.  At the same time they were able to grab Michael Bennet for 1 year at $5M.

Marshawn Lynch was still on his rookie deal when the Seahawks traded for him.  He made $3M total in the first 2 years with Seattle.  Wow.  Their unique position financially and how everything lined up with Pete's vision in terms of the kids they drafted softened the blow of making idiotic moves like giving Matt Flynn and Zach Miller big contracts, or trading a 1st round pick for Percy Harvin and giving him a big contract.  Sidney Rice was another guy the Seahawks gave a big contract to that didn't work out.

[OldhamA]

7 hours ago, unicar15 said:

The idea is that if you have a secondary ELITE enough to play a single high safety and not help your corners on the perimeter then you’re not going to give up points. It’s been this way forever in the NFL. It frees up rushers. Frees up LBs and the free safety to pursue RBs. Elite corners change the game. They always will. 

Yep, it's why we took Horn at #8, the Broncos took Surtain at #9 and the Texans and the Jets took Stingley and Gardner at #3 and #4 respectively.

You can never have enough good CBs.

 

[OldhamA]

4 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Defensive approach goes in cycles just like offenses.

We started out as a team in a 3-4 with 2 high safeties if I remember correctly.  It was that way under Capers and it worked until the offenses figured out a way to neutralize it. Now its a thing again, but in reality it never really went away because it will always be some coaches preferred bread and butter style. 

There are only so many ways you can arrange 11 guys on defense to reek havoc.  Eventually someone will figure out how to beat whatever you are doing. You have to always evolve and/or adapt your team and your approach if you want to be successful in this league .

I think it's the opposite these days - defences trying to figure out how to stop offences. 

The game has shifted from 'how do we score against you' to 'how can we limit your scoring'? Mainly due to the rule changes. 

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

I think it's the opposite these days - defences trying to figure out how to stop offences. 

The game has shifted from 'how do we score against you' to 'how can we limit your scoring'? Mainly due to the rule changes. 

It goes in cycles, always has. Remember the "Greatest Show on Turf" the Rams made famous? It was until John Fox built a defense that put Mike Martz into retirement. 

Fox also put together a similar offense with another no name qb that came a shanked kick and Tommy John from being a HOF qb himself. 

It comes in cycles. Given the new rules favoring offenses it's imperative the defense evolve for a better competitive advantage.

 

 

[chbright]

Within your own excerpt they mention the shift to odd man fronts to help use the both Lb as edge control vs bringing the safety down. Much of the odd man front issue is always finding the beef to replace the even front in the run game. If you can find it, it's still preference, if you can't see Ron's last year here. No beef, expect to get pounded and your edge rushers to get doubled up and out of the picture. 

It does mean a guy like Kam Chancellor is obsolete or is a full time OLB. Hell he was boarder line even there as he was the guy to target in that secondary. if you let him roam or play in the box, he was a wrecking ball. Ask him to actually cover a guy, no chance for him, injuries or not. This is not new, see Landon Collins.

I do think the ideas from the athletic metrics still make sense, but maybe the beef side of the secondary isnt as big a part as it was on that Seattle team. Favor the length but not the stopping power most of the legion of boom had. Switch out Chancellor for another FS with a rangy coverage safety vs a run stop safety, and that group still may play just fine. Especially if you put that odd front out there as say the Wilfork lead pats fronts. In some ways that's what KC ran with honey badger last few years. Landon Collins moves to an OLB role for Ron in Washington. As a coverage guy, he couldn't cut it. Ask him to be a permanent fixture in the box, he works. 

Seattle did start the trend and I don't think that's going anywhere soon. With the receivers becoming ever bigger, the 5'9" CB is going to struggle when they keep meeting these 6'4" WR that can run with them. Safeties now have to also deal with a lot more TE that are actually receiving threats and not just little linemen. So the priorities may no longer feature the stopping power of the legion, but prioritizing speed, length, and explosive testing (vert and broad jumps and 10 yard splits) will be the athletic tent poles when measuring guys just like Seattle did early. Don't think you care like Seattle did on finding hitters. Hell the game doesn't really allow it the same to make the boom worth the penalty risk.