The Overrated Red Bryant...Position?

"Say that to my face, skinny white boy."

He was the mini-Hutchinson of 2010, the one who got away. Most eulogies of Seattle's 2010 season mark the injury loss of DE Red Bryant as the point of collapse for Seattle's run defense, which ranked a surprising #2 by Week 7. It was a frustrating end to one of the offseason's most exciting stories, as training camp reports gushed about Bryant's experimental shift from tackle to end and the immediate improvement that followed.

Bryant, a fourth-round afterthought before the experiment, left such an indelible impression in his six games healthy that the run-stopping RDE in Carroll's scheme is now popularly named after him. With Red's future clouded by injury, the "Red Bryant position" is now seen as one of the team's foremost needs, the key to unlocking smashmouth defensive play. This has a lot of mock drafts, including this week's version from Rob Staton, handing Seattle a similar hulking-but-quick hybrid like Phil Taylor or Muhammad Wilkerson, who is set to visit with the Seahawks.

Here's the thing: the numbers don't support the idea that Seattle's early-season defense was all that amazing in the first place. In fact, it looks downright overrated upon close examination. And an overrated defense calls into question the value of, perhaps not Red Bryant himself, but the position he plays in Carroll's scheme.

I investigate this because it affects Seattle's draft board: where does a hulking-but-quick 5-tech like Taylor or Wilkerson really belong in the hierarchy of the Seahawks' needs?

This is a long one.

The Brandon Mebane Conundrum

Hey, Kip here. You might remember me from Seahawks Draft Blog. I'm really tight on time this year, so I can't contribute terribly often either here or at SDB, but this is a topic I've had on my chest for a few weeks and since Brandon (Adams) asked me to contribute, I figured this would be a good place to start this topic.

When Pete Carroll brought his "Leo" defense to Seattle in 2010, it didn't officially change Seattle from a 4-3 to a 3-4 team, but in some ways, it was a step in that direction. Seattle's previous 4-3 defenses featured two pass rushing defensive ends who could perform reasonably well against the run, a pass rushing defensive tackle (known as the 3 tech), and a single gap run stuffing defensive tackle (known as the 1 tech).

Though technically still a 4-3, the "Leo" concept is a bit more unbalanced. The strong side (usually left) defensive end needs to be death to the run while also collapsing the pocket, but isn't expected to be a consistent pass rusher who generates sacks. The strong side defensive tackle, who manned the 3 tech in the previous defense, becomes a two gap player, something that is generally only found in 3-4 defenses. A two gap player does not shoot a gap, but instead directly engages a lineman and protects the gaps on both sides of him. The 3 tech role still exists, but was moved from the strong side to the weakside. Finally, you have the Leo position off the weak side end, and this is where almost all of the pass rush is generated from.

As with any scheme change, you will have players who benefit and others who suffer.